WUWT climate change briefing for President-elect Trump

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The redoubtable Debbie Bacigalupi, who keeps a close eye on some of the dafter activities of the Borg, has come across a revealing Wikileaks email that David Hayes, a law lecturer at Stanford University, sent earlier this year to John Podesta, the chairman of Mrs Clinton’s presidential campaign, inviting him to participate in a conference at Stanford on how to ensure that the incoming President kowtows to the Party Line on climate change. Quite what business this is of a law lecturer is not made clear.



May 6th Hewlett-Sponsored Conference at Stanford

From: dhayes@[xxx]stanford.edu

To: john.podesta@[xxx]

Date: 2016-02-23 00:11

Re: May 6th Hewlett-Sponsored Conference at Stanford


Great job at the David/Tamera fundraiser today! I am spending most of my time these days on a major project that I am doing at Stanford for the Hewlett Foundation. The project focuses on “Setting the Climate Agenda for our Next President”. It is bipartisan in nature, and will address both substantive policy-setting and administrative questions of how best to mobilize the federal gov’t for the complicated task of executing on cross-cutting climate change policies.

(I realize, of course, that there’s some surreality to all of this, given the views on the Republican candidate side toward climate change. We’re moving forward on the theoretical proposition that if an R [Republican] wins, he’ll need to confront the issue then, even if he doesn’t address it during the campaign.)

We’re inviting former Governor Jennifer Granholm and former Governor Christy Whitman to open up the event with their observations of how the next President might/could/should address climate change, from a POTUS/chief executive-type perspective.

We would like to follow that with a discussion with you and Josh Bolten — as former Chiefs of Staff of the President — commenting on the organizational challenges of effectively addressing complex, multi-agency and federal/state implementation issues like climate change (and — if you’d like — on some of the substantive challenges as well).

Larry Kramer, whom you know from your ClimateWorks Board involvement, is looking forward to serving as an interlocutor for a lively discussion with you and Josh on this subject. I have attached a draft of the full agenda for the day. It is going to be a very important and timely conference. John, I hope that you can come to Stanford on Friday, May 6th to do this. Can I twist your arm?

Thanks. David

David J. Hayes

Stanford Law School

Distinguished Visiting Lecturer in Law”

So, let us take a leaf out of the totalitarians’ book and prepare our own punchy WUWT PowerPoint briefing on climate change for the incoming President.

From the policy standpoint, Mr Trump will want to know the answers to just two questions.

1. How much global warming will we cause, and by when?

Answer: Not a lot, not soon, and perhaps not ever.

2. Is the cost of mitigation today less than that of adaptation the day after tomorrow?

Answer: No. It is 1-3 orders of magnitude costlier to mitigate than to adapt.

What slides would you include in the PowerPoint? Let me know in comments below and I’ll prepare the briefing. Once the new President has seen it, he will be able to say of climate change what Margaret Thatcher, in the first question she ever answered as leader of the Conservative Party, said of the notion that the House of Lords should be reformed:

“I am happy to give an undertaking that that vital matter will be at the very bottom of my very lowest list of priorities.”

Which, come to think of it, is exactly where the general public, in survey after survey, puts climate change.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John W. Garrett
November 10, 2016 4:04 pm

What’s the point of going halfway ?
Send the very best.
Send Lord Monckton.

J McClure
Reply to  John W. Garrett
November 10, 2016 4:25 pm

Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley – WOW
He is a true Hero!
He, on his own, has elevated logic and destroyed foolishness for years!
He, long before most, stood his ground with Pride.

Reply to  J McClure
November 10, 2016 4:55 pm

Lord Monckton is both a gentleman and a scholar as well as great fun to converse with!

J McClure
Reply to  J McClure
November 10, 2016 5:36 pm

Damn – I love the Monkckton but dude – “From the policy standpoint, Mr Trump will want to know the answers to just two questions.”
No, the questions are fubar. the only answers he is looking for is how to negate a trillion dollars of waste and mitigate the rest.

george e. smith
Reply to  J McClure
November 10, 2016 6:09 pm

WUWT has become quite unusable by me, because a popped up ad won’t let me do anything but watch it.

Dave Fair
Reply to  george e. smith
November 10, 2016 6:12 pm

Clear your browser’s history.

Phil R
Reply to  J McClure
November 10, 2016 8:16 pm

george e. smith,

WUWT has become quite unusable by me, because a popped up ad won’t let me do anything but watch it.

I run into the same problem off and on, and it’s irritating.
Dave Fair,

Clear your browser’s history.

With respect, easy enough to say but very it’s still very frustrating and it’s not something that should need to be done regularly just to read the blog. I know it’s not Anthony’s fault, but still….

Reply to  J McClure
November 11, 2016 1:46 am

High Big G
For WUWT and general browsing I use Opera 41.0 browser. It blocks all ads and pop-ups, it is much faster than the IE or Chrome. At the moment in the top right-hand corner it shows little blue shield with No.11 (number of ads blocked)

Reply to  J McClure
November 11, 2016 4:58 am

George E Smith, I had that problem in IE 10. I switched to Google Chrome and the ad would shut up. An option in IE-10 (the open book button, upper right) will also shut the ad up.

Reply to  J McClure
November 11, 2016 5:02 am

Had same problem. Installed AdBlock. Everything moved faster. PC stopped locking up. http://download.cnet.com/s/adblock/

Reply to  J McClure
November 11, 2016 5:51 am

George and anyone else tired of popups:
Install this https://adblockplus.org/
It comes with the option of allowing specific sites to present their ads. Some sites I enjoy depend on pop ups for funding, so I permit them.
It will transform your browsing experience.

Reply to  J McClure
November 11, 2016 9:21 am

“WUWT has become quite unusable by me, because a popped up ad won’t let me do anything but watch it.”
George, I use Firefox browser and a “Noscript” addon and don’t get any ads or anthing else popping up when I go to this website.
There may be an addon that works the same way on your particular brower. The Noscript app works very well, and you can enable anything on a webpage if you so desire, or block everything.

Reply to  J McClure
November 11, 2016 3:05 pm

@ TA…Noscript is a great tool.

J McClure
Reply to  John W. Garrett
November 10, 2016 5:43 pm

Why is the World sucking on the US like child in …

Reply to  J McClure
November 10, 2016 10:09 pm

Because commies

Reply to  John W. Garrett
November 10, 2016 6:19 pm

This whole “control C02 output fraud was not initiated by scientists, but by 9th-grade dropout Maurice Strong in 1972, a toady for Rothschild/Rockefeller.
Are you a realist? If the temperature where you were born is getting so hot you need to move poleward, have you moved 800 miles north. Anthony hasn’t. Nobody is. Steven Mosher didn’t move from Chicago to Manitoba–he moved to California where the avg temp is HOTTER than in his native town.

Reply to  ilfptm
November 10, 2016 9:13 pm

you need to move poleward, have you moved 800 miles north.


Reply to  ilfptm
November 10, 2016 10:49 pm

Huh? Chicago is not my home town.
I moved from Grand Rapids Michigan to Chicago (colder) to LA ( too hot) to The south bay
to SF.. to cold mountainn ridge.. away from sea level rise

Richard G
Reply to  ilfptm
November 11, 2016 2:47 am

With your latest move Steven, your beginning to remind me of Governor Moonbeam.

Reply to  ilfptm
November 11, 2016 12:07 pm

Did you pack up before running away from sea level rise or did you not want to risk it and ran out panicking while leaving everything behind?

Reply to  ilfptm
November 11, 2016 12:45 pm

(Thanks for the chuckle, Steve : )

Reply to  ilfptm
November 11, 2016 2:38 pm

Na, I got sick of being the only libertarian in SF

Reply to  ilfptm
November 11, 2016 5:54 pm

I’ve moved to a different country 15 times since I was born, and that included a lot of north/south movement. My latest move, and I hope the last, was to move 1,000km north to get away from the cold of the coming ice age.

imark schooley
Reply to  John W. Garrett
November 10, 2016 6:49 pm

Antony grew up in the Sacto Valley. If global waring was killingly hot, he would have moved up to the Okanagan Valley. Steven moshe grew up near Chicago. If global arming was happening, he would have moved to Northern Manitoba, not to Cali. He LOVES warm temps. We all do.

imark schooley
Reply to  John W. Garrett
November 10, 2016 7:01 pm

John Podests wo believes in climate change disaster, he has recently moved from D.C. to Nunevit to escape the heat. And Leonardo DiCaprio has moved from balmy LA to cooler Nome. And AL Gore has sold his Montecito Co Cal home to live in Alaska. It is just getting so hot, they are moving away northward.

Reply to  imark schooley
November 10, 2016 10:00 pm

Gonna join Lenny DiCaprio and the others? Because “it is just getting so hot.”
Don’t take any chances! It’s gettin’ real hot!
So you had better RUN while you still have a chance…

Reply to  imark schooley
November 10, 2016 10:01 pm

Apologies if you were being sarcastic. With all the ‘climate change’ delusion going around, sometimes it’s hard to tell…

Reply to  imark schooley
November 11, 2016 6:26 am

The temp chart you posted is my favorite repudiation of the alarmist position. Is it on a general blog/website? It should be posted in the comments section of EVERY alarmist article.

Reply to  John W. Garrett
November 10, 2016 7:32 pm

Be sure to include linkage to David Alker’s new paper “Greenhouse Effect Theory within the UN IPCC Computer Climate Models – Is It A Sound Basis?” This paper gives the history of the junk science behind this “theory” (actually an unproven hypothesis) and then deals with how the “theory” violates thermodynamics and conservation of energy. It’s in the middle between technical and non technical, so a read with someone with a science background ( a physicist hopefully) would be invaluable.
Anything that clearly shows that reputed greenhouse gases are more accurately called “radiative gases,” which absorb and emit IR radiation during the day and are saturated, comprising a wash, but sense to convert heat energy to IR during the night, which is why the air cools so very rapidly after the sun goes down. These gases serve to cool the nightside of the planet and moderate daytime heating.

Reply to  higley7
November 11, 2016 3:51 am

M’ Lord, I believe most if not all the charts from Steve Goddard/Tony Heller would be of ample use:

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  John W. Garrett
November 10, 2016 8:48 pm

Here is my submission “Climate Change is real but Global Warming is a myth. Natural variability in meteorological parameters, more particularly in precipitation that defines the droughts and floods, is the primary component of climate change which is beyond human control that needs adaptation. The other important component is urban-heat-island effect where in more than 30% of people live may o up to 50% in the next 25-30 years. In this scenario, temperature goes up and that necessitates more power consumption compared to rural counterparts. To reduce this impact, needs better town planning along with development of greenery and water bodies. The other important issue relates to air, water, soil & food pollution in association with urbanisation, transport, industry, agriculture, burning of firewood, burning of forests, etc. This needs to be controlled and or minimised. This directly affects humans and other life-forms on the earth and reduces potable water.”
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 11, 2016 6:41 pm

With respect Dr. Reddy:
We need to allow individuals to move their residence to cooler places. Planners will waste the peoples’ money, deny us the diffused knowledge and variety of solutions that will advance humankind. If folks think it is too hot or their energy bill too high they must be free to move.
We suffer from too many planners and too much planning. America’s growth has slowed as we have tolerated planners and planning. India’s growth has exploded as that country has begun embracing free markets and personal freedom.
Creation of new solutions is rapid when governments are small, poor and weak. Misery and tyranny can be replaced by free, strong, rich individuals making the best choices for themselves.

Dave Fair
November 10, 2016 4:06 pm

Mr. Monckton, The Donald opens his first climate change briefing folder and sees: “The IPCC is a Third World SJW front and their climate models are bunk.”
Nothing else.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 10, 2016 7:09 pm

“The Federal bureaucracy, organized Marxists/Progressives, public academe, teacher unions and other public sector unions are acting in concert to brainwash fear and timidity into American children, who grow up to be fearful automatons of the sort that you see protesting outside your front door.”

Reply to  Mickey Reno
November 11, 2016 6:11 am

Senator McCarthy! you’re back!

Reply to  Mickey Reno
November 12, 2016 10:34 pm

Ah, Griff–wouldn’t you say that a meme designed to bilk people of their money and freedoms yet has no scientific basis is far worse than what McCarthy was chasing?
I certainly would.

Lauren R.
November 10, 2016 4:08 pm

Here are a couple polls showing how little people really care about climate change.
Gallup (U.S.) – Most Important Problem:
U.N. (International) – Public Priorities:

Jim Simasko
November 10, 2016 4:08 pm

Send someone else.

November 10, 2016 4:12 pm

Lord Mockton being brief and to the point.

Reply to  Tom Halla
November 10, 2016 7:09 pm

I kinda miss the Bob Tisdale 24 figure pieces with links to a 2 dozen at his own blog.
Call it “Nostalgia for The Good Fight” now that the Green Blob has a sucking, mortal chest wound.

Reply to  joelobryan
November 10, 2016 7:15 pm

I was suprised that Lord Mockton was that brief. Trump winning could very well have been something he did not really anticipate.

Steve Case
Reply to  joelobryan
November 11, 2016 1:14 am

           Green Mob

Harry Passfield
November 10, 2016 4:13 pm

Show him the climate model ‘predictions’ vs the actual and let him make his own mind up. WTF…. just send Richard Lindzen.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
November 10, 2016 4:45 pm

“Show him the climate model ‘predictions’ vs the actual and let him make his own mind up.”
I have to agree. See, Mr. President these wavy lines on the chart going up at a 45 degree angle are what the IPCC said was supposed to happen, and way down below those lines, you have a basically horizontal line that shows what the tempertures actually did during that period, and as you can see, there was no excess warming in the actual temperture record.
Yes, a visual comparison of IPCC fantasy versus reality would be a good way to start.

Patrick Powers
Reply to  TA
November 11, 2016 10:59 am

And add to that excellent idea by pointing out how every single one of these ‘wrong’ predictions is closer to reality than the previous one, showing that as the evidence mounts the problem continues to diminish.
Finally I would also suggest stressing how unscientific the whole climate debate is. True science – as I was taught in Durham UK in the fifties is to encourage others to probe your hypotheses not to announce that the science is settled and even suggest trying to prosecute or deride those who disagree. The Royal Society has as its motto “Nullius in verba” (Latin for”Take nobody’s word for it”) yet they and most climate alarmists do not adhere to that excellent maxim. Worse the separate Royal Society of Edinburgh freely admits that they have never accepted any speaker to talk against the oft-trumpeted climate ‘consensus’. That is not science, it’s not even pseudo science.
Then finally might I suggest you mention Prof Bob Carter who sadly died on 19 January 2016 after a heart attack at the age of 73. Just as with fellow countrymen and subsequent Nobel Prize winners Drs Marshall and Warren whose derided theory regarding heliocobacter-pylori was proved to be correct, Carter’s Australian University vilified him for sticking to his scientific principles when all about him disagreed. He stood up for REAL science in the face of quite unscientific argument. If this is to be a power point presentation why not also use as a background the wonderful Turmuhrglockenspielmelodie as composed for him by you?

November 10, 2016 4:16 pm

Contact some one in Russia who has access to leadership.
Ask them to loan Pres. Trump and the American people one Russia’s ice breakers .
Then require 4 years of community service from the top 100 climate change proponents on a research mission to the Antarctic and have them report ice trends there back at the end of the four years.

Reply to  fobdangerclose
November 10, 2016 5:13 pm

Do not fire them do a globalist big boss thing offer them a transfer some 15,000 miles away!

Reply to  fobdangerclose
November 10, 2016 5:16 pm

..Why give them an Ice Breaker ?? They don’t believe the ice is there so give them hand ice picks so they can chip away for four years at the imaginary ice that isn’t really there in their imaginary little world…!!

Cold in Wisconsin
November 10, 2016 4:16 pm

My very best slide would show that the uncertainty of the size of natural sources of carbon and of natural carbon sinks is actually larger than the production of carbon by burning fossil fuels. If we don’t know the size of natural sources and sinks, why are we flagellating ourselves over our own production? Unfortunately, I have not been able to find the slide that originally showed this. I believe that it was in one of the IPCC reports, but of course the comparison was not highlighted in the way that I have mentioned. If anyone can come up with it, I would love to have it.

Paul Milenkovic
Reply to  Cold in Wisconsin
November 10, 2016 7:18 pm

I would clarify this point that we do indeed know the sizes of the natural carbon sinks. We also know that these sinks are in a homeostatic quasi-equilibrium, where the natural carbon flows to and from these sinks are large whereas the net flows producing change in atmospheric CO2 over time, whether natural or human-caused, are much smaller in comparison.
We also know that the variability of the net natural carbon flows — the imbalance from a self-regulating homeostasis — is certainly large in relation to the human contribution within each year with the changing of the seasons — those are the wiggles on the famous Keeling curve showing the atmospheric CO2 level over time. Lost in looking at this curve over many decades is that the year-to-year increase is also variable, indicating a fluctuation of the imbalance in the natural carbon flows between years that is at least of the same magnitude as the human contribution. We know that the business cycle affecting our industries notwithstanding, industrial emissions do not vary enough to account for that fluctuation.
The imbalance of the natural carbon flows is highly correlated with atmospheric temperature. There is emerging evidence that a temperature increase stimulates carbon emission from natural reservoirs. That this natural mechanism hasn’t already resulted in a “runaway condition”, where increased temperature stimulates CO2 emission that in turn raises the temperature further, suggests that increases in atmospheric CO2 greatly stimulate plant growth to counteract this effect. Evidence of such “greening” of the Earth is apparent in satellite surveys of plant growth.

Reply to  Paul Milenkovic
November 11, 2016 2:46 pm

The sasonal changes are quite regular and don’t surpass 5 ppmv/K where oceans and vegetation work countercurrent (so do NH and SH seasons) and NH vegetation is dominant. Net residual after a full seasonal cycle average above 2 ppmv/year. Human emissions are currently about 4.5 ppmv/year…
The wiggles in the year by year CO2 increase are known too and are less than human emissions for every year in the past 55+ years. The variability is only half human emissions around a trend which itself is also only half human emissions:
In fact the variability in CO2 growth is a variability in sink rate, not in source rate. Further investigation has shown that it is mainly the reaction of tropical vegetation on (ocean) temperature changes and rain patterns, opposite to seasonal changes vs. temperature changes. That is based on the opposite changes of CO2 and δ13C… That zeroes out over periods longer than 1-3 years. Over longer periods vegetation is a small but growing net sink for CO2 (at higher CO2 levels and temperature). Indeed the earth is greening…

November 10, 2016 4:17 pm

1) Earth has been cooling for 3K years, today is only mild thaw before next cooling
2) if you want to lower emissions build natgas power and crash program on the Molten Salt Reactor
3) CO2 is Plant Food

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  Walter J Horsting
November 12, 2016 2:38 am

+1 for MSR. We have French firm EDF trying to build an ‘EPR’ for us, of which they have no working examples, at a cost which would easily fund the development of an MSR prototype. The MSR could be an indigenous British product, which would lead to international orders once it was shown to be a better solution than a pimped-up steam engine.

November 10, 2016 4:18 pm

97% of all biologists believe plants consume CO2 through the process of photosynthesis. Increased CO2 levels have caused a greening of the planet. The science is settled. Burning fossil fuels has made the planet greener.

November 10, 2016 4:22 pm

These Podesta climate change emails just keep coming.
The other was his interest and interference in the internal affairs of the Australian Government in the coal mining of the Galilee basin.
There is nothing wrong with him wanting to brief the incoming President.
Clearly the President is prepared to look at the debate, but judges the alarming predictions as doubtful.
More importantly he wants to look after his people, just like the Indian and Chinese governments.
Perhaps this is the opportunity for the President to ask basic questions about the science behind climate change, competence of climate models and reliability of data.
We may end up with informed debate.

November 10, 2016 4:23 pm

Christopher Lord Monckton
Compliments on your succinct summary! Please formally submit your recommendation to President Elect Donald Trump at: Share Your Ideas
Re: “the views on the Republican candidate side toward climate change.”
The official views of Donald J. Trump President Elect are now formally published at GreatAgain.Gov
Energy Independence

The Trump Administration will make America energy independent. Our energy policies will make full use of our domestic energy sources, including traditional and renewable energy sources. America will unleash an energy revolution that will transform us into a net energy exporter, leading to the creation of millions of new jobs, while protecting the country’s most valuable resources – our clean air, clean water, and natural habitats. America is sitting on a treasure trove of untapped energy. In fact, America possesses more combined coal, oil, and natural gas resources than any other nation on Earth. These resources represent trillions of dollars in economic output and countless American jobs, particularly for the poorest Americans.
Rather than continuing the current path to undermine and block America’s fossil fuel producers, the Trump Administration will encourage the production of these resources by opening onshore and offshore leasing on federal lands and waters. We will streamline the permitting process for all energy projects, including the billions of dollars in projects held up by President Obama, and rescind the job-destroying executive actions under his Administration. We will end the war on coal, and rescind the coal mining lease moratorium, the excessive Interior Department stream rule, and conduct a top-down review of all anti-coal regulations issued by the Obama Administration. We will eliminate the highly invasive “Waters of the US” rule, and scrap the $5 trillion dollar Obama-Clinton Climate Action Plan and the Clean Power Plan and prevent these unilateral plans from increasing monthly electric bills by double-digits without any measurable effect on Earth’s climate. Energy is the lifeblood of modern society. It is the industry that fuels all other industries. We will lift the restrictions on American energy, and allow this wealth to pour into our communities. It’s all upside: more jobs, more revenues, more wealth, higher wages, and lower energy prices.
The Trump Administration is firmly committed to conserving our wonderful natural resources and beautiful natural habitats. America’s environmental agenda will be guided by true specialists in conservation, not those with radical political agendas. We will refocus the EPA on its core mission of ensuring clean air, and clean, safe drinking water for all Americans. It will be a future of conservation, of prosperity, and of great success.

h/t summary by Trump Reveals Policy Goals: “Building That Wall”, End “War On Coal”, Repeal Obamacare, Dismantle Dodd-Frank at ZeroHedge

Reply to  David L. Hagen
November 11, 2016 4:53 am

GreatAgain.gov and Share Your Ideas are indeed linked. Thanks for the URLs.

Reply to  David L. Hagen
November 11, 2016 9:36 am

“scrap the $5 trillion dollar Obama-Clinton Climate Action Plan and the Clean Power Plan and prevent these unilateral plans from increasing monthly electric bills by double-digits without any measurable effect on Earth’s climate.”
That will put the U.S. $5 Trillion ahead of all the other nations on Earth who are wasting their money on crippling their own current energy generation potential, and chasing the renewable generation deadend. Trump is going to keep energy prices low in the U.S. and that’s good for everyone.

Jimmy Haigh
November 10, 2016 4:24 pm

We would have gotten away with it if it hadn’t been for that pesky Trump….

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
November 10, 2016 5:32 pm

..Dang non immigrants !!! They always get in the way …..LOL

November 10, 2016 4:26 pm

Show him Eric Smith’s multi decadal study of the relentless movement of GHCN thermometers toward the equator as the “climate scientists” tried to sustain their false narrative. Eric blogs under the name the Chiefio.

Reply to  Fred Ohr
November 11, 2016 12:37 am

aka E.M. Smith.

November 10, 2016 4:26 pm

“How much global warming will we cause, and by when?”
Sorry but this is so oversimplified as to simply be WRONG. The question should be “How do human warming effects compare to natural temperature change?” And: “When our best estimates for both are combined do we even know whether it would be better to have a stronger or a weaker human warming effect?”
To which the answers are 1) that natural effects are likely (more than 50%) to be both stronger than human effects and in the cooling direction so that 2) we would probably rather have a stronger rather than a weaker human warming effect, but this is not something we should be trying to manipulate without knowing a lot more than we do now.
And I would add, as I have done many times before, that we should be getting READY to offset any sudden onset of global cooling by dotting the great white north with coal burning plants designed with both a clean burning mode and and dirty mode that is optimized for maximum production and dispersal of airborne soot to induce wide-area melting of snow and ice.
Electricity generation would be a mere byproduct, sufficient for plant and local use only, as northern distances make anything but local electricity transmission inefficient. The primary purpose would be to have the capacity to quickly offset any cooling that could induce an albedo-feedback cycle capable of dragging climate down into a next period of glaciation. The only real danger always has been and always will be GLOBAL COOLING.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Alexander Rawls
November 10, 2016 10:40 pm

Mr Rawls has seen the simplicity of my two policy questions, but not the subtlety of them.
The first question, “How much global warming will we cause, and by when?”, encapsulates within it the distinction between natural and anthropogenic contributions to warming that he regards as essential.
And the second question, on the economics of climate mitigation, encompasses his question about whether it would be “better” to have more or less manmade warming.
I have long experience of briefing heads of state and of government. The art is to condense the main points into the shortest practicable compass.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 11, 2016 8:32 am

Moncton of Benchley:
“How much warming will we cause, and by when?”
The answer depends upon understanding the actual cause of climate change, which is real, but is not caused by greenhouse gasses.
Between 1853 and the present there have been 2 depressions and 31 recessions. ALL are coincident with temporary increases in average global temperatures. The cause of the temperature increases can only be due to fewer emissions of strongly dimming SO2 aerosols into the troposphere because of the reduced industrial activity during a business slowdown.
The resultant cleaner air allows sunshine to strike the earth with greater intensity, causing temporary increases in average global temperatures. (ERSST temperatures show the same warming pattern)
Likewise, Clean Air efforts since circa 1970 have resulted in the reduction of global SO2 aerosol emissions from a peak of 131 Megatonnes in 1970 to 101 Megatonnes in 2011 (the last year for which global SO2 emissions are currently available).
The “rule of thumb” for the amount of warming caused by the reduction .in SO2 aerosol emissions is .02 deg. C. of warming for each net Megatonne of reduction in global SO2 aerosol emissions.
For the 30 Megatonne reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions between .1970 and 2011, an expected temperature rise of 30 x .02 = 0.60 deg. C. would be expected. This is precisely the Jan-Dec average global temperature reported by NASA! Predictions/projections for all intervening years where SO2 emission amounts are known are accurate to within .02 deg. C, when natural variations are accounted for.
This precision.completely excludes the possibility of any additional warming due to greenhouse gasses.
Thus, the answer to your question would be “zero”, if all reductions in SO2 emissions were to be immediately halted.
This will not happen, but temperatures can be estimated based upon projected amounts of reduction in SO2 emissions. This information should shortly become available–and the projected warming will be worse than anything currently projected for greenhouse gasses!..

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 11, 2016 11:37 pm

On the costs issue, bring in Bjorn Lomborg.

Jimmy Haigh
November 10, 2016 4:26 pm

Tony Heller’s plot of a perfectly linear relationship between temperature adjustments and atmospheric CO2 is the killer for me.

November 10, 2016 4:28 pm

“How much global warming will we cause, and by when?”
Sorry but this is so oversimplified as to simply be WRONG. The question should be “How do human warming effects compare to natural temperature change?” And: “When our best estimates for both are combined do we even know whether it would be better to have a stronger or a weaker human warming effect?”
To which the answers are 1) that natural effects are likely (more than 50%) to be both stronger than human effects and in the cooling direction so that 2) we would probably rather have a stronger rather than a weaker human warming effect, but this is not something we should be trying to manipulate without knowing a lot more than we do now.
I would also add, as I have many times before, that we should be getting READY to offset any sudden onset of global cooling by dotting the great white north with coal burning plants designed with both a clean burning mode and and dirty mode that is optimized for maximum production and dispersal of airborne soot to induce wide-area melting of snow and ice.
Electricity generation would be a mere byproduct, sufficient for plant and local use only, as northern distances make anything but local electricity transmission inefficient. The primary purpose would be to have the capacity to quickly offset any cooling that could induce an albedo-feedback cycle capable of dragging climate down into a next period of glaciation. The only real danger always has been and always will be GLOBAL COOLING.

November 10, 2016 4:29 pm

Must show slides of how incredibly poor the climate models perform vs. reality . Must demand that ALL environmental legislation be based on data/results from the Scientific Method.

November 10, 2016 4:29 pm

CM. You don’t have to be a US citizen to science advisor to the president

Reply to  Joe
November 10, 2016 5:07 pm

Lord Monckton, Trump invited your Prime Minister, Theresa May for a visit, as soon as possible. You should come with her and discuss climate change with Trump. 🙂
“President-elect Donald Trump has invited British Prime Minister Theresa May for a visit to the United States “as soon as possible,” according to a spokesperson for No. 10 Downing Street.”
Trump is going to treat Britain a lot better than our current president. He puts Britain at the head of the line/que.

NW sage
Reply to  TA
November 10, 2016 6:44 pm

I also personally believe that Trump will assure PM May that the bust of Winston Churchill will be immediately restored to it’s previous place of honour in the White House on Jan 21, 2017, PM May will also be invited to that ceremony.

Reply to  TA
November 10, 2016 8:08 pm

NW sage November 10, 2016 at 6:44 pm
I also personally believe that Trump will assure PM May that the bust of Winston Churchill will be immediately restored to it’s previous place of honour in the White House on Jan 21, 2017, PM May will also be invited to that ceremony.

So it will be moved from outside the Treaty room to the Oval office, not sure why a ceremony would be necessary.

Reply to  Joe
November 11, 2016 5:13 am

..Phil, the original was sent back to Britain…PERIOD !!
“The White House originally denied that the bust had been removed and sent back to Britain, before admitting that it actually had – although a second identical bust remains in the White House.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3554310/Obama-admits-removed-bust-Churchill-Oval-Office.html#ixzz4PhYnIsx5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Reply to  Marcus
November 11, 2016 2:22 pm

Marcus, the original is still in the White House it was given to Lyndon Johnson back in the 60’s. A second bust was loaned to Bush in 2001 and was returned at the end of his term (I believe the original was being cleaned at the time).

November 10, 2016 4:31 pm

Show him all the facts: Hurricane data, tornado data, sea level rise data, temperature data – worldwide and USA, cyclone worldwide data, Greenland ice growth data, Antarctica ice growth data, sea surface data – just the facts man…

November 10, 2016 4:31 pm

Please explain to him that although the Chinese were instrumental in saving the world from the global coup of COP21 they are NOT the ones who started the “hoax”. That ball is firmly in our court.

Reply to  Greg
November 10, 2016 8:21 pm


Hot under the collar
November 10, 2016 4:34 pm

How much global warming will we cause, and by when?
The answer is inversely proportional to the amount of money spent on the ‘climate change research’ gravy train.

Nigel in Santa Barbara
November 10, 2016 4:36 pm

I hope this works, but I am ‘skeptical’…
Having a skeptic that forces people to do what he thinks isn’t going to re-educate people about the wrongness of AGW, it will only make them hate skeptics more. Unproductive. What we need to do is somehow lead people to investigate the matter enough that they will see the truth. This requires patience and skill, not heavy-handed approaches. I’m not sure how far a skeptical president will get with such a task (especially since he thinks it is somehow related to a Chinese hoax, which IS nonsense). He may prevent some money being spent, but once he’s gone, the AGW ‘believers’ will just come back and undo whatever he did (or tried to do), thanking the gods above that ‘sensible’ people are again back in power. He may do more harm than good for ‘true’ science. The method matters, and the method should be education, not force.
He may strong-arm things for a while, but that doesn’t address the problem. People need to be re-educated first.

Reply to  Nigel in Santa Barbara
November 10, 2016 5:21 pm

My own experience has taught me that many, many people believe what they want to regardless of any reason or facts that may contradict those beliefs. The numbers vary with the beliefs so I’d guess that any AGW/ACC advocates remaining will be virtually invulnerable to any facts or reasoned argument that we could present.
Well, more correctly that you could present, since I stopped trying when I realized that none I could find had even the slightest understanding of solar, orbital and planetary dynamics effects on Earth’s climate. It was entertaining to see their faces fall when they realized that I actually expected them to do math!

Reply to  Nigel in Santa Barbara
November 11, 2016 10:52 am

Phones and pens are lousy instruments for governing – both for doing and undoing. Given the balance of power that has evolved, and the historical rejection of Copenhagen, The incoming POTUS should submit the “treaty” for ratification by the Senate. It takes the onus off of him. Once rejected, it should automatically obviate any adaptation/mitigation funding through the UN, thus removing that discussion from the budget agenda of the House. Then the question of removing any support for the UNEP bureaucracy can stand alone during budget deliberations. Peanuts from Canada – so I may be wrong.

Mark from the Midwest
November 10, 2016 4:37 pm

Just the fact that they would invite Granholm to open a conference indicates that they aren’t serious about science or public policy. Jen pretty much trashed Michigan’s finances on all kinds of pet projects for the teacher’s unions, the UAW, and the for a multitude of environmental groups. The only good outcome of her tenure is that the backlash was so strong that we got an accountant in the Governorship, (Snyder), who has stabilized the finances, taken the Detroit political mafia, (can we say Kilpatrick and crew), to the cleaners, and generally done a good job of getting the auto industry to return some jobs to the Midwest.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Could the Trump win also have come from Granholm’s radical leftism?

November 10, 2016 4:40 pm

I would suggest including some of the animated graphs showing how NOAA has been warming up data over the years. Rigging the data to conform to AGW.

Reply to  Greg
November 10, 2016 4:45 pm


Reply to  Greg
November 10, 2016 4:57 pm

Yes, definitely. +10

Reply to  Greg
November 11, 2016 11:33 pm


Ed Zuiderwijk
November 10, 2016 4:43 pm

Add an historical reference: The Global Warming scare as the Lysenkoism of the politically correct liberal classes of the end of the 20st and early 21st century, a psuedoscience allowed to control energy, transport and food policies.
Then suggest that he asks president Putin what the pseudoscience of Lysenkoism did to Russian (soviet) agriculture. Most Russians have forgotten about it (Lysenko was erased from the historical narrative by Brezhnev cs) but Putin surely knows everything about it.

November 10, 2016 4:44 pm

Install Sarah Palin as head of the EPA.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 10, 2016 5:11 pm

That place needs to be cleaned out and largely shut down.

Reply to  Rob
November 10, 2016 7:01 pm

I think she would do it…
Or another post regarding enegy…

November 10, 2016 4:48 pm

Corruption flourish within education and government – paid for by decent workers via taxes.

November 10, 2016 4:49 pm

Going to Podesta was the wrong approach. Mr. Hayes would have done far better to have made a $100M “contribution” to the Clinton Foundation – except for that pesky Trump winning the election.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  techgm
November 10, 2016 5:06 pm

Yes that pesky Trump thing, I wonder how all those large donors to the Clinton Foundation were feeling late Tuesday evening?

James Francisco
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 10, 2016 5:39 pm

Mark. Good point. I hope the foundation remains just long enough to see the donations drop to nothing. That will make it obvious to everyone that it is a pay to play scheme.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 10, 2016 6:03 pm

Perhaps the Clinton foundation will entertain the possibility of providing refunds???

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 10, 2016 7:20 pm

@ tomwys regarding the refunds? With what? The Clintons just bought a 6 mil house for Chelsea and probably stashed the rest somewhere safe. I wonder if she will a “premature” end, if anything.

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 10, 2016 9:47 pm

I think the Clinton Foundation will be renamed the Clinton Legal Defense Fund. 🙂

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 10, 2016 10:48 pm

They probably felt like inciting riots.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 11, 2016 5:20 pm

Calling their “associates” Moose and Rocko.

November 10, 2016 5:02 pm

More settled science from Monkton
I would have just one slide for Trump.
Change priorities in funding from Modelling to Observation. period
Long ago there was a satellite mission that would have answered some of the nagging questions
aboout aersols — Glory… it blew up and was never rescheduled
So. if skeptics want to be TRUE to their past concerns over observations.. I would suggest
that instead of defunding climate science you push to re focus on the areas that you
think will improve our understanding.
NIST traceable satellite records
More CRN stations
and yes
Better Paleo work with archived data
And Push for more open source and open data.
I got a whole list of stuff that needs to be done on observation. I imagine Willis and Anthony could
make a whole wish list of observations that we should be collecting.
Ya got 4 years to put something positive in place.
Now you own the purse strings
what data will you gather?
please make it open

Reply to  dbstealey
November 10, 2016 10:57 pm

db… I have a version of that chart.. but instead of temperatures it shows the stock market
Its easy to fool yourself.
Tougher to deceive others
read him

Reply to  dbstealey
November 11, 2016 2:24 am

Some would also need to read ‘How to Lie with Statistics’. One way of deceiving is to exagerate the values by using some arbitrary range for the axis (not starting from zero and so on).

Bob Boder
Reply to  dbstealey
November 14, 2016 10:20 am

“db… I have a version of that chart.. but instead of temperatures it shows the stock market”
show it

John MacDonald
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 10, 2016 10:06 pm

You know, I think Mosher has some good points here. Let’s get money spent on balancing the scientific inquiry, and restoring the scientific method to the debate.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  John MacDonald
November 10, 2016 10:45 pm

I agree with Mr MacDonald that Mr Mosher has made some constructive suggestions. Rebalancing research efforts away from failed modeling and towards better and more careful and less biased observation would make very good sense.
However, so ruthlessly regimented is the Party Line in academe that even if funds are granted for better observational research it will be diverted towards promotion of the Party Line. Best to cut off the funding for a time. Academics respond faster to that than to anything.

Reply to  John MacDonald
November 10, 2016 11:03 pm

“restoring the scientific method to the debate.”
After a few years working for Muller.. Mosh will NOT like that idea. !!

Reply to  John MacDonald
November 10, 2016 11:05 pm

yes John
It is hard to answer the charge of being anti science if you cut off funding
It is hard to argue that you want a debate and then defund everyone
Its hard to argue that for years all you lacked was the funding to do science right,
and then cut all funding
Its hard to maintain that, as skeptics, you only want the truth and then cut off your nose to spite your face.
True colors will out of course.
Anti science types, folks who are not skeptical of their own reasoning will find a way, any means necesssary to defund.
Of course that will just mean that US scientists will move to places that will fund.. and you lose your leverage..
Basically the defunders make the same mistake that the left wing loony divestment types make
Recall the folks who wanted to divest in south africa
or those who want to divest in Isreal
Same mentality
Money is the power. Only a fool would divest in science

Reply to  John MacDonald
November 10, 2016 11:14 pm

“After a few years working for Muller.. Mosh will NOT like that idea. !!”
Huh Muller is a staunch defender of Popperian ideals. See his fights with String theory guys.
He and I differ on this.
We differ on a lot of things… kinda why I am there.

Reply to  John MacDonald
November 10, 2016 11:18 pm

” Best to cut off the funding for a time. ”
Nice Lord Monkton
hey Roy Spencer??? the good Lord suggests that observations should not be funded..
Oh wait
About the observation networks that get used for hurrican forecasts and crop forecasting
and watching the sun to protect our satellite assets..
defund it all
Nice idea Lord Monkton.
that is seeking the truth in your new world disorder?

Reply to  John MacDonald
November 11, 2016 1:03 am

Indeed, very good points by Mosher. I’d also add more ocean based measurements and observations, as this is lacking at the moment, massively.

Reply to  John MacDonald
November 11, 2016 1:11 am

“I agree with Mr MacDonald that Mr Mosher has made some constructive suggestions. Rebalancing research efforts away from failed modeling…..”comment imagecomment image

Reply to  John MacDonald
November 11, 2016 11:28 pm

Need measurement. It’s the funds for interpretation that need to be reweighted. Are the histogram temperature records being altered by alarmists to produce the poster child graphs for a climate Armageddon or not? If yes, then I agree with Monckton: baby has to go out with the bathwater.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  John MacDonald
November 12, 2016 12:53 am

Toneb — the figures do not represent global warming. According to IPCC greenhouse effect component that includes global warming is more than half. The other non-greenhouse effect part, mainly a local phenomena and nothing to do with global phenomena. Also, the rural cold-island effect [that covers two-thirds of land area] cooling contribution not accounted realistically. Over the increase cyclic natural variability component form part. So, what will be the global warming part in the curve? Only then such curves have meaning. Otherwise they only serve sensationalisation of the issue of global warming.
The sudden raise might be associated with urban-heat-island component!!!
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 10, 2016 11:32 pm

Good comment you made here!
I have your book, Climategate, Been reading it ,good work.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 11, 2016 2:48 pm

Really should have taken the time for one re-write and some copy editing. but I was totally drained
the couch cushion where I sat for days and nights without moving never came back to normal..
ha, fat ass I suppose

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 11, 2016 10:58 am

What a month it has been! The Cubs win the pennant, Trump wins the election and I agree with Mosher on something.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 11, 2016 11:32 pm

Agree with this. Put skeptics in charge of the reforms though.

November 10, 2016 5:02 pm

Many recent reports say that global temperature continues to rise but other reports say that except for ENSO there has been no significant rise in global temperature in 18 to 20 years. How can both be true? How can temp. be the highest ever but not be? where is simplified explanation for a non-climatologist? drdave

Reply to  David H. Jackson,MD
November 10, 2016 10:19 pm

Because, I believe they express + or – temp. anomalies for the current month compared to the same month average 1981 thru 2000. The late 70’s were the last lows in the cooling from the 40’s. 1937 still remains the hottest on record for the US. .05 degrees + here and there are well within the margin of error anyway…….I think.

Reply to  David H. Jackson,MD
November 12, 2016 7:54 am

“Many recent reports say that global temperature continues to rise but other reports say that except for ENSO there has been no significant rise in global temperature in 18 to 20 years. How can both be true? How can temp. be the highest ever but not be? where is simplified explanation for a non-climatologist? drdave”
drdave, the climate scientists who are promoting the CAGW theory are modifying the surface temperature data and producing graphs that make it appear like the temperatures have been climbing steadily like the one below:comment image
Whereas the satellite temperature charts don’t look anything like the modified surface temperature charts, see below:
As you can see, the UAH satellite chart shows 1998 as hotter than any other year on the chart other than the last year, 2016. As you can also see, the surface temperature chart shows a completely different profile, with 1998 showing to be cooler than several years that come after it.
Using the surface temperature chart, the promoters of CAGW can present the years after about 2005, as being hotter than the year before which fits in with their narrative that the temperatures are getting hotter and hotter, and also fits in with their narrative that each successive year is hotter than the last, the “hottest year evah!” mantra.
But you can’t make all those claims if you are using the UAH satellite chart because nothing on that chart is hotter than 1998, until you get to Feb. 2016, where the temperature exceeded the high of 1998, by one-tenth of a degree (and has subsequently cooled after that date).
The Surface Temperature charts have been drastically modified over and over again, by CAGW proponents, and the modifications always cool the past and warm the future.
The UAH satellite chart has had small modifications to its charts over the years, and is operated by honest people, and imo, is the most accurate temperature chart we have available. The surface temperature charts are garbage, created to justify the human-caused global warming claims made by the adjusters.
The 1930’s was 0.5C hotter than 1998, and 2016 got up to one-tenth of a degree hotter than 1998, for one month, so going by that, we are actually still in a temperture downtrend from the 1930’s, and “hotter and hotter” is a figment of the imagination in the CAGW context.
The temperatures went down from the 1930’s to the 1970’s, and then they went up an equal amount from the 1970’s to today. It looks like a normal cycle of warming, then cooling, then warming again.
2016 may turn out to be the hottest year since 1998, but that doesn’t make it that unusual. We have been at this place before in the past. If the temperatures were to continue to rise in the coming years, then we would have to rethink our skeptical position, but we will just have to wait and see which direction it goes. It might go down. We might be starting another cyclical downtrend. Time will tell.
Bottom line: The climate alarmists are using the surface temperature charts to twist the facts in order to push a political agenda: CAGW.

Roy Spencer
November 10, 2016 5:04 pm

first, drop the phrase “orders of magnitude”…you will have lost them at this point.

Reply to  Roy Spencer
November 10, 2016 6:00 pm

Suggest the more succinct:
“Answer: No. It costs far more to mitigate than to adapt.”

Reply to  David L. Hagen
November 10, 2016 7:33 pm

“Answer: No. It costs far more to mitigate than to adapt.”
PC talk is no more: stupendously more, not far more.

Reply to  tegirinenashi
November 11, 2016 7:00 am

tegirinenashi Wisdom is to use words that will be heard, not dismissed out of hand.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Roy Spencer
November 10, 2016 7:30 pm

Roy Spencer November 10, 2016 at 5:04 pm
Briefing the next President on the subject of Climate change.
So, if asked you up to it?
Myself you are at the top of the list. Sorry if I am putting you on the spot, but well you know the material the theory, the strong and weak points of both sides of the argument. You are honest and give the benefit of the doubt.
Also, you as the president’s go to guy, is nice karma.

Bill Illis
November 10, 2016 5:04 pm

First move on the climate front.
New team moves into the NCEI/NCDC to preserve whatever data is left, two months is alot of time to whitewash everything. Then there needs to be a forensic audit. Maybe there will be enough whistle blowers remaining at the NCDC so that we can get back to the REAL temperature record.
Second move is a new team at the NSF grant making boards.
Expect a ‘Yuge amount of protest at just these first steps but they are never going to stop the protests until they run out of money. Hence, running them out of money eventually is the underlying REAL reason to carry out any changes at all.

Reply to  Bill Illis
November 10, 2016 6:11 pm

be enough whistle blowers remaining at the NCDC so that we can get back to the REAL temperature record.’
The Chinese hacked the BOM here in Australia.
It might be possible to hack them back to obtain the original data, if their form carried to NCDC.’

Reply to  Bill Illis
November 10, 2016 11:11 pm

Science Advances.. Nov 18..
karl vindicated

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 11, 2016 3:03 am

You can’t sell anyone that used car, Mosh.. It has no wheels or engine…
but do keep trying.. Its funny

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 11, 2016 2:49 pm

wait for it.. or deny data you havent seen

Reply to  Bill Illis
November 11, 2016 2:49 am

Except they’ll find the data stands up and there are no whistle blowers because there is nothing to blow about

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 3:03 am

“there is nothing to blow about”
Yet that is all you seem able to do !!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 12:24 pm

Griffie, face it: You lost. Elections have consequences. Get over it and find a new way to make money in the short time you have left sucking on the watermelon tit.

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 2:52 pm

The problem is they bet the farm on finding something… when there is nothing to find.
When your out of power , it makes sense to say the other side is hiding stuff.. but only iif you are sure.
put another way.. After Jan 20… every bit of science that comes out will have Trumps implicit Blessing.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 11, 2016 8:50 pm

Wrong-o, Steve-o! Real science stands on its own. It is only CAGW “science” that needs political sponsors.
Given that elections have consequences, and we won, Charlie Skeptic has left the battlefield in triumph. Rhymes with Trump.
Who will pay for your Wandering in the Weeds now, Mr. Mosher?

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 11:17 pm

Mosher. So I take it you believe the reports of filibustering from government scientists on congressional oversight committee requests for their methodologies are false? The back and forthing has been going for some time. That would take a lot of effort to concoct a lie about a staring contest between government scientists and congressional oversight committees. An alternative is that the requests for access are real and the stall-tactic response is real too. Considering that the work of those scientists belongs to the people of the u.s.a., there really is no reason to stall other than they fear getting caught for doing something they believe can be heavily criticized. Whatever the reason, their failure to comply is anti scientific.

Pat Frank
November 10, 2016 5:05 pm

Chris, regarding your #1, here’s the link to my DDP talk on the reliability of climate model air temperature projections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA
If you’d like any of those slides, let me know.
Summary: climate models have no predictive value whatever. The whole AGW thing is people talking through their hats. The tragedy is that most of them are not well-trained enough to know that (including the climate modelers themselves).

November 10, 2016 5:06 pm

What climate change?

Reply to  Rob
November 10, 2016 5:26 pm

“What Climate Change?”
Plus 1.0 deg. C. since 1970
Jan-Dec GLOBAL Land-ocean Temperature Index

Reply to  Burl Henry
November 10, 2016 6:10 pm
Reply to  Burl Henry
November 10, 2016 6:16 pm

Plus 1.0 C since 1970..
I absolutely love it. No way do I want to go back to those cold miserable 1970’s. We couldn’t even get crops off, cold, wet, tractors sinking in the mud, spoiled grain, moldy, not even fit for cattle.
This November is fabulous. Warm, dry, super for walking with the kids in the woods.
If our added CO2 does this, I want more!

Reply to  Burl Henry
November 10, 2016 10:12 pm

Burl Henry,
Why does your chart stop at 1980? This chart covers from 1880 – 2015:
What’s the problem?

Reply to  Burl Henry
November 11, 2016 9:53 am

You should definitely show Trump this 1999 chart, and then compare it to charts of today.
This chart shows we are still in a “long-term” cooling trend and contradicts later bastardized charts, and “hottest evah!” claims.

Reply to  Rob
November 10, 2016 6:15 pm

Show that climate change since 1970 is entirely within the bounds expected by natural variation as the Earth warms from the Little Ice Age; Show the original Gore hypothesis that increasing CO2 will enter a runaway positive feedback loop with water vapor to cause runaway global warming, then show the studies that find only a weak or neutral relationship between CO2 and water vapor. Show that the U.S. already beats almost every other country in CO2 reduction.

November 10, 2016 5:07 pm

Off topic but wonder how , Soros, Hewlet Packard, Rockefellers, Saudis, etc are feeling and cooking up right now. Wonder if ready to hang the Clintons off the petard?

Reply to  nc
November 10, 2016 5:56 pm

Will be most interesting to see if donations to the Clinton Foundation fall off a cliff, will it not?

Reply to  nc
November 10, 2016 6:18 pm

..Hillary is in hiding, because she does not want to get the Harry Reid “exercise equipment” payback..?

November 10, 2016 5:13 pm

The single bulls eye issue is climate sensitivity, so choose images that demonstrate;
1. It’s low,
2. There really isn’t ANY empirical or observable positive feedbacks (at the levels required) to drive ‘runaway’ global warming.
3. You win the debate right there.

November 10, 2016 5:16 pm

Mr. Trump:
Congratulations on beating Shrillary.
Please try your best to place the Clintons in a proper “retirement” home where they belong — in prison — for the biggest charity fraud in American history — that’s why so many emails will never be seen again.
If they had been Republicans, that’s just where they would be.
And please stop saying that Shrillary destroyed 33,000 emails — she actually destroyed ALL her email electronic files, and turned in 14 boxes of hard copies, two of which are now missing … if the word CONFIDENTIAL was in the header of any email, I assume it was not printed.
Shrillary may claim she deleted 33,000 emails, but the true number could be 66,000, or 330,000 — we’ll never know — anyone who trusts a Clinton for an accurate number is a fool !
The climate is wonderful in 2016.
I know you don’t believe the leftists about their beloved socialism, with open borders, and government controlled medical care.
So you should not believe the leftists about their coming global warming catastrophe fantasy, which they have been bellowing about for 40 years so far.
Global warming should be #101 on your list of 100 things to work on first.
You should announce:
“Since the science is settled, I will be firing all the “scientists” on government payrolls who play computer games and make wrong climate predictions.”
I call them “scientists” in respect for their college degrees, but they are actually nitwits — they have no idea what causes climate change, yet they spend the taxpayers’ money playing computer games that have to
make wrong predictions because THEY STILL DON’T KNOW WHAT CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE.
And you should tell them the demonization of CO2 is over.
They already hate you, so you never have to worry about what you say.
The average temperature has barely changed in 135 years — remained in a tight 1 degree C. range.
In fact, more CO2 in the air is good news — accelerates green plant growth, with little or no effect on the temperature.
In spite of increasing CO2 in the air, there was COOLING from 1940 to 1975, not warming, and a FLAT TREND from the 2003 high until mid-2015.
In fact, most of the warming after 1940, claimed to be from CO2 with no proof, was from the 1993 low to the 2003 high — and affected the northern half of the Northern Hemisphere much more than the southern half of the Southern Hemisphere.
– The increase of CO2 was nearly constant from 1940 to 2015.
– The warming was NOT constant.
(mainly in one ten-year period from the early 1990s to early 2000s).
– The warming was NOT global.
(almost no warming of Antarctica)
PS: Please send a picture of Melania for my Climate Centerfold blog.

Steve Case
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 11, 2016 1:20 am

And you should tell them the demonization of CO2 is over.
Pass out buttons and bumper stickers: “CO2 is NOT a Problem”

Reply to  Steve Case
November 11, 2016 4:33 am

Except, of course, it is…

Malcolm S
November 10, 2016 5:19 pm

Why not point out the IPCC’s own guidance ? In ~2010, it was important to avoid a 2C increase in temperature by 2050. Now the target is a 2C increase by 2100. The revised interim target is 1.5C by 2050. The logical conclusion is that the IPCC sees the rate of warming as less than half the values predicted previously, and increasingly consistent with the long-stated views of climate sceptics. But to avoid any embarrassing acknowledgement of the reduced values of Climate Sensitivity associated with these new targets, the IPCC no longer considers “Climate Sensitivity” to be a relevant parameter.

November 10, 2016 5:20 pm

IPCC AR5 Figure and Table 6.1 show how insignificant mankind’s role is in the carbon cycle. The net is 0.57% over 261 years, fossil fuel is 0.34% of the total carbon cycle. Plus all of these numbers are WAGs. How does anybody know what the carbon cycle looked like before 1750 or for 160 of the 261 years between 1750 and 2011. There uncertainty is +/- 850 Gt. Mankind gross 555, net 240, FF 160.
Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10 displays values from 8 meteorological organizations. Seven of the eight show cooling not warming much to Trenberth’s dismay. Plus the GHG loop violates energy conservation and thermo.
IPCC AR5 TS.6 Key Uncertainties especially the one that says they still don’t have a handle, i.e. low uncertainty, on the magnitude of the feedback between CO2 and the climate. See “Climate change in 12 minutes.
IPCC AR2 Box 9.2 where they admit the hiatus and blame the inability to model the pause on the complexity of natural variations and possibly a too high value for feedback.

November 10, 2016 5:21 pm

One popular GHE theory power flux balance (“Atmospheric Moisture…. Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10) has a spontaneous perpetual loop (333 W/m^2) flowing from cold to hot violating three fundamental thermodynamic laws. (1. Spontaneous energy out of nowhere, 2. perpetual loop w/o work, 3. cold to hot w/o work, 4. doesn’t matter because what’s in the system stays in the system) Physics must be optional for “climate” science. What really counts is the net W/m^2 balance at ToA which 7 out of 8 re-analyses included in the above cited paper concluded the atmosphere was cooling, not warming (+/- 12.3 W/m^2). Of course Dr. Trenberth says they are wrong because their cooling results are not confirmed by his predicted warming, which hasn’t happened for twenty years. (“All of the net TOA imbalances are not tenable and all except CFSR imply a cooling of the planet that clearly has not occurred.”) Except it also hasn’t gotten hotter.

imark schooley
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 10, 2016 6:44 pm


November 10, 2016 5:24 pm

Best 40 minute one-stop hit-every-point briefing of a lukewarmer position that can really convert people I’ve ever seen is this from Matt Ridley:
Answers your two questions we want them answered, and demonstrates that, increasingly, this IS the consensus of the latest science. The real eye-opener (for newbies) will be his demonstration that his position doesn’t even contradict the IPCC–looking at the actual scientific reports, and not the political one that is the starting point for all alarmism.
Why just preach to the choir? Once a believer himself, he blazes a trail to skepticism.

November 10, 2016 5:25 pm

1. Costs to US taxpayer so far expended on climate change madness
2. list of organizations, govt. depts., individuals, politicians involved in spreading climate change propaganda. What they got out of it.
3. a slide listing ALL research which supports CAGW hypothesis – a BLANK SLIDE is fine

November 10, 2016 5:26 pm

Typo: “Answers your two questions as we want them answered”

John Loop
November 10, 2016 5:33 pm

I agree. Show them the climate model predictions (Their OWN predictions). This includes everything they “KNOW” about the climate. But the models cannot even predict the PAST. How can you believe they understand the climate!!! Simple as that. We are paying trillions for this?

November 10, 2016 5:34 pm

Here is what Trump should start with:
Make GISS a stand-alone organization so they no longer get a free-ride of goodwill from the general public based upon the achievements the real NASA have done in the past. This will also make it simpler to steer the NASA founding to space exploration without wasting it on reading ground based thermometer on earth.
Take half the budget away from GISS and other alarmistic organization and give this founding to Curry, Linzen, Soon, Spencer, Svensmark and other real scientists. By doing this no one can accuse Trump of not using money on climate research.
Fire Carl Mears at RSS and hire someone who actually believes in the job he is doing. Mears is running around and complaining about how bad he is doing his own job and that everybody should trust the “adjusted” ground based dataset instead of his result.

Reply to  Ryddegutt
November 10, 2016 10:44 pm

trump cant fire Mears ding dong

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 11, 2016 3:01 am

You love trying to sell lemons , don’t you Mosh.
Don’t cry, once this AGW scam is over, you can still find another low-end 2nd hand car dealer to work for.

Dave Fair
Reply to  AndyG55
November 11, 2016 12:41 pm

Andy, you really shouldn’t rub it in. Soon, all the Federal monies will dry up and there will be massive unemployment for climate hustlers.
They are actually going to have to go out and compete for real jobs. I’m sure it will be a shock to them and their families.
Feel sorry for them.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 11, 2016 1:44 pm

Here is my theory. Without federal payment RSS will cease to exist. So the biggest and possible the only principal that is picking up the bills, will have some saying about who the leader of the crew at RSS should be.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 13, 2016 1:28 pm

“You love trying to sell lemons , don’t you Mosh.”
The post was factually wrong
Its hard to admit I know.

Reply to  Ryddegutt
November 11, 2016 2:48 am

Those you name aren’t all real scientists… Soon has taken fossil fuel money without declaring it in his research.
Curry defends the adjustments to the surface temp data: the satellite data is multiply adjusted!

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 3:05 am

They are all FAR more REAL SCIENTISTS than you or Mosh will ever be.
Jealousy, jealousy, poor Griff
Don’t cry too much, little child-troll.comment image

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 4:32 am

you are a very excitable fellow, to be sure!

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 2:07 pm

You should look up the meaning of non-disclosure agreement (NDA). And by the way, you could make the same amount of money a year as a waiter at McDonalds as Soon got from the oil companies each year. Soons founding is of course only drops compare to what Greenpeace and WWF gets from oil companies every year.
If Pol Pot, Bin Laden or Stalin founded the discovery of penicillium, would you suggest that we should not use it because the inventor had the wrong founding?

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 10:38 pm

How would anyone know if someone takes money from fossil fuel interests? Soon denies taking money from such sources. Literally who would know aside from Soon and his cynical supporters? Neither of whom should have any interest anyone knowing. So who would know?! It strikes me as immoral to attack someone’s credibility with a baseless appeal to ad hominem cynicism.

November 10, 2016 5:36 pm

We don’t do “spirit cooking” !! 🙂

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  TRM
November 10, 2016 6:29 pm

(Google John Podesta + spirit meals)

Nigel S
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
November 12, 2016 8:39 am

I use meths to light my paraffin stove, is that the same thing?
Valor Packaway, a thing of beauty is a joy forever.

john karajas
November 10, 2016 5:38 pm

Please consider Patrick Moore, one of the initial founders of Greenpeace, and now a prominent climate sceptic. He delivers a great presentation!
Maybe he can talk about Golden Rice as a way of alleviating Vitamin A deficiency in third world malnourished populations as well.

Reply to  john karajas
November 10, 2016 6:26 pm

You gotta add some climate phds. Maybe Lindzen for one?

Reply to  john karajas
November 11, 2016 2:47 am

Patrick Moore was involved in one of the groups which became Greenpeace, in a group which was entirely based around opposing nuclear testing.
He resigned pretty soon after Greenpeace came together: he never embraced any part of its philosophy except the anti-nuclear and has therefore not changed his mind on climate or renewables: he never supported those issues in the emerging organisation

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 2:56 am

“he never embraced any part of its philosophy ”
That is because he is not a totalitarian self-righteous socialist scumbag, like the present Greenpeace activists are.

John F. Hultquist
November 10, 2016 5:39 pm

Show a photo of poor people burning cow pies to cook.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
November 10, 2016 5:44 pm

Oh, sorry. I did not mean the cookies. I meant the dried excrement of animals, aka manure..

S Keith Jackson
November 10, 2016 5:40 pm

My key point would be that CO2 reduction policies that are remotely economically and politically feasible will have no measurable effect on the global climate (Patrick Michaels at the Cato Institute has good data on this). That is true even if you use ICPP climate sensitivity assumptions. Any implication that our adoption of policies that are so harmful to the U.S. is justified because it will convince China, India, Russia and other developing countries to adopt similar policies – ones that are even more harmful to them (the EPA position) is simply silly. Any proposed EPA climate-related policies that are being considered should be predicated only on their effects on global temperature (clearly negligible) and NOT on “emissions avoided”, the current approach used for its value in obfuscating reality.

Robert of Ottawa
November 10, 2016 5:41 pm

socialism by the corrupt back door

November 10, 2016 5:45 pm

Justin Trudeau, Gerald Butts and Catherine MacKenna need to be educated with the material in this brief. So does Kathleen Wynne.
Just today Trudeau vowed to go ahead with carbon taxes.

David in Michigan
Reply to  Sommer
November 11, 2016 7:59 am

And speaking of Canada, they want to lead off with this Canadian ex-pat who was run out of Michigan (finally);
“We’re inviting former Governor Jennifer Granholm….” (She left Michigan immediately after leaving office and went to California where all “right thinking” people live.)

Jimmy Haigh
November 10, 2016 5:48 pm

Tell them to read “The Grapes of Wrath”.

November 10, 2016 5:49 pm

As most of the global fear mongering was based on a “cost/benefit” analysis of rising CO2 that only looked at costs and ignored benefits, how about some points on what CO2 does for life on earth and the measurable improvements we see with rising concentrations (greening, improved crop growth, increased drought tolerance, overall increased biomass).

November 10, 2016 6:03 pm

David J. Hayes is a fruitcake. He can’t see the sun setting or rising. He hopes in one hand and shits in the other and wishes that the hope hand fills faster.

Dave Fair
November 10, 2016 6:11 pm

Just have President The Donald TRY to read one of the Climate Assessment Reports prepared by the Executive Branch Agencies wasting time on topics outside their charters.

November 10, 2016 6:14 pm

With a guy like Trump, you want to show him facts in terms that that he personally relates to:
1. Show him sea level rise versus the Trump Tower.
2. Show him temperature rise in terms of the cooling/heating bill for the Trump Tower.
3. Show him choice quotes from IPCC leadership in terms of wealth transfer. I suggest in particular:
“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

4. Show him that even the IPCC doesn’t believe their own alarmism and that according to THEM we have much bigger agents of change on the horizon than climate. Table 10:10 in this thread lays it all out. Heh, you could even take Richard Tol along to explain it:
5. Show him CO2 fertilization in terms of revenue increases to the US from agricultural exports.
…and so and and so forth.

November 10, 2016 6:14 pm

..All you “Never Trumpers”, think about it…Hillary spent just over 1 BILLION dollars of other peoples money and lost….Trump spent just under 800 million dollars, half of it his own PERSONAL money….and he won !!
Who would you rather have controlling the purse strings of America ?

Reply to  Marcus
November 11, 2016 7:12 am

He certainly didn’t spend anywhere close to $400million of his own money!

Reply to  Phil.
November 11, 2016 12:29 pm

I heard Trump say a couple of days ago that he had spent a little over $100 million of his own personal money on the campaign.
I guess that’s even more bang for the buck!

Dave Fair
Reply to  TA
November 11, 2016 4:48 pm

Hillary spent over $2 Billion of OPM (Other People’s Money), minus what she, Bill and Chelsea raked off for themselves.

Nigel S
Reply to  Phil.
November 12, 2016 8:41 am

Some of those OPs being the poorest of the poor in Haiti.

November 10, 2016 6:44 pm

..No matter who you voted for, you have to admit, Melania will be the most beautiful First Lady to ever grace the White House…IMHO…

Dave Fair
Reply to  Marcus
November 11, 2016 4:49 pm

And the smartest: She told us Donald didn’t lose.

j wurts
Reply to  Marcus
November 11, 2016 5:41 pm
November 10, 2016 6:45 pm

Bill Hewlett must be flipping over in his grave. His fortune being used by useful liberal idiots to sabotage the great country he loved.

Reply to  Dennis
November 10, 2016 7:53 pm

…along with all the other industrialist foundations. It appears to be cancerous.

Ian H
November 10, 2016 7:08 pm

Keep it short and to the point. Trump is an executive summary type of guy. I like your points 1 and 2. I suggest
3. How sure are we about any of this?
Answer = not very

November 10, 2016 7:12 pm

Lord Monckton:
The presentation slide that I think should be included are:
A) A slide that highlights the near total lack of actual achievement per dollar spent on climate projects, grants and research. The world is allegedly in trouble; emergency methods must be delivered. Only none of the methods are subjected to Return on Investment (ROI) accounting standards.
B) a slide that highlights climate expenditures to date, are massive fund grants without oversight or deliverables. Climate expenditures disguise or outright bury ongoing costs, e.g. dead birds, bats, maintenance fleet, energy used to manufacture mine, mill, fabricate components, etc.)
C) All climate/infrastructure/energy efforts require origination to end-of-life costs and ROI.
D) Elimination of travel budgets used for climatology luxury alleged business trips.

November 10, 2016 7:13 pm

My briefing:
1. How much global warming will we cause, and by when?
Answer: Hopefully not a lot; certainly less than alarmists fear and certainly not soon.
2. Is the cost of mitigation today less than that of adaptation the day after tomorrow?
Answer: Who knows? It depends on the discount rate, climate sensitivity, and many other unknowns. Without binding and enforceable international treaties (which the less developed world and the US Senate won’t sign), mitigation isn’t going to help much. Looking at the “progress” since Kyoto (a fifth of a century)! However, if you and your successors manage our economy properly, our citizens who will be forced to adapt to whatever is coming will be far richer than today’s. (If not, Americans will be dealing with far bigger problems than climate change.) With luck, new technology will contribute significantly to minimizing the coming problem. Let’s focus our resources on programs that are more likely to help Americans.

Reply to  Frank
November 10, 2016 7:36 pm

Have you seen the temperature record on the South Pole
It is beautiful!

Reply to  tegirinenashi
November 11, 2016 3:31 am

tegirinenashi: Over most of the planet, OLR decreases with altitude (and GHE concentration) because temperature and therefore emission (but not absorption) decrease with temperature. However, there is no decrease in temperature with altitude over the South Pole, and therefore no enhanced GHE. If the South Pole were warming, it would only be because warmer air from elsewhere was being convected to the South Pole, not because of radiative forcing from rising GHGs. A strong vortex around the South Pole tends to isolate the air over the South Pole. It is beautiful.
The same phenomena occurs in the stratosphere, where the temperature also rises with altitude. Rising GHGs cause more radiative cooling to space from the stratosphere and lowers temperature. Unfortunately, little of our atmosphere lies over the South Pole and above the tropopause and rising GHGs have and will cause some warming.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Frank
November 10, 2016 8:18 pm

2) Is the cost of mitigation today less than the of adaptation the day after tomorrow?
2) Answer: Who knows?
We know. Global warming is a fraud. There will be nothing to adapt to. Stop pretending it is real and the world will stop wasting resources. You are just a hothead in disguise.
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
November 11, 2016 4:22 am

Eugene: While claims of alarmists may be fraudulent or exaggerated, the theory of radiative forcing is sound (and believed by the host of this blog and many contributors). However, unforced variability (which is a common phenomena in chaotic systems) during the Pause and the 1960s likely obscured the warming expected from radiative forcing and enhanced warming during 1975-1998 and 1920-1940. Unforced or natural variability has also caused warm and cool periods such as the LIA, MWP and RWP documented in ice cores and elsewhere. Given the record of VARIABILITY in climate, the lack of warming since 2000 can’t DISPROVE anything about GHG-mediated warming. Laboratory experiments tell us how radiation interacts with GHGs.
In the future, the diminishing activity of the sun could herald the beginning of another LIA, but that would provide only about 1 degC of cooling. We’ve already seen about 0.6 degC of warming since 1950 – or perhaps 0.5 degC if you look at the raw data before homogenization. UAH and Argo are also showing warming. Even another LIA – if one came – probably won’t suppress all of the warming expected from radiative forcing from rising GHGs.
Climate science has certainly been corrupted by politics. Climate models are unvalidated and contain numerous parameters that can be tuned to produce a wide range of warming. We don’t know how much warming rising CO2 will cause (climate sensitivity) nor how much natural and unforced variability will enhance or diminish that warming. However, the theory of radiative forcing originated long before politics began to corrupt climate science. Chances are low that this theory will ever be proven wrong.

November 10, 2016 7:33 pm

Podesta can go ahead with the gathering and call it “The Meeting of the Formers.”

Eugene WR Gallun
November 10, 2016 8:06 pm

Lord Mockton will not be presidential adviser but i would love to see him invited to the White House and given the red carpet treatment. Maybe let him carry back the bust of Winston Churchill.
Eugene WR Gallun

November 10, 2016 8:13 pm
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
November 11, 2016 12:34 pm

Yeah, that’s the chart! Show Trump that chart. Give him a copy he can carry around in his briefcase.

Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
November 11, 2016 12:41 pm

Here’s another chart you can show Trump:
Tell him to look at the chart closely and he can see that the climate alarmist meme of “hotter and hotter” and “hottest year evah!” is not true according to the satellite data. The only “hottest year evah” since 1998, might be 2016. The years in between are just also-rans, yet NASA and NOAA promoted them as being years that were getting hotter and hotter, and each year was hotter than the preceding year. This UAH chart demonstrates that all that climate change propaganda is false. It’s plain to see, especially if you point it out for them.
NASA/NOAA couldn’t do their “hotter and hotter” and “hottest year evah!’ using the UAH chart, so they had to bastardized the surface temperature chart so that it followed the climate change narrative, and presented a false picture of reality. So who are you going to believe UAH, or GISS?

November 10, 2016 8:16 pm

The conclusion that “It is 1-3 orders of magnitude costlier to mitigate than to adapt” would have to be based upon a model that: a) is not cross validated and b) conveys no information to us about the conditional outcomes of events. I can say this safely as there is currently no climate model that does not have these characteristics. Thus, to reach any conclusion other than that no conclusion is currently possible about the action that should be taken in response to the evidence. The research on the “global warming” phenomenon has been mismanaged.

November 10, 2016 8:30 pm

Keeping it simple. The proposition is: Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.
Mike van Biezen’s essay on this theme is summarized and illustrated here: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/10/03/the-climate-story-illustrated-2/

November 10, 2016 8:46 pm

Kiss. Keep it simple …. get the american people on board by explaining the negative aspects of so called green energy, ie the
Now legal slaughter of our national symbol, the eagle by less than useless windmills, ot hey al HA HA!

Reply to  John piccirilli
November 11, 2016 2:43 am

Except the figures on eagle deaths are misrepresented.
Go find the population estimates of US golden/bald eagles.
Cross reference with claimed wind turbine deaths of eagles.

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 3:07 am

“Except the figures on eagle deaths are misrepresented.”
Yep, they have people who go out and clean up the mess, so the count is kept as low as possible.

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 3:27 am

Donald Trump 306 votes to Hillary Clinton’s 232 votes!
Give us a big smile please, Griff. 🙂

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 4:31 am

I’m sending America my best wishes…
The many Americans I know are people of open hearts and goodwill and I’m sure that’ll carry them through the tempestuous times ahead

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 2:01 pm

Griff, the Obama administration is allowing the windmill farms to kill up to 4,000 Bald Eagles a year legally.
I saw a news clip this morning about a Bald Eagle in distress, and the efforts the local citizens went to to save it. And then I think, they will release the Bald Eagle in the wild and it will fly right into a windmill. I wonder what the people who rescued that Bald Eagle would think if they took a stroll through the grounds of a windmill farm. House of Horrors, I would think.
4,000 Bald Eagles a year. I suppose if windmills kill more than 4,000 Bald Eagles, the Obama administration will increase the legal limit.

Nigel S
Reply to  Griff
November 12, 2016 8:44 am

That’s not counting the flamers at Ivanpah.

Dirk Pitt
November 10, 2016 8:51 pm

1) For the most part of geological history, CO2 concentration has been much higher than today.
2) At 400 ppm of CO2, plants are growth inhibited. Ideally, it should be around 1,200 ppm.
3) Ask greenhouse vegetable producers, why they supplement it with CO2.

Reply to  Dirk Pitt
November 11, 2016 2:43 am

And show the logarithmic effect of increasing CO2.

November 10, 2016 9:05 pm

I can’t feel good about this post because the House of Lords WAS reformed.

dan no longer in CA
November 10, 2016 9:25 pm

I would start with the plot of global temperature and CO2 concentration back to the precambrian period. Here’s an example: comment image Notice there is no correlation. Then, I would then pick from the climategate emails http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf the statements that “We have to make the med evil Warm Period go away” coupled with the historical plots covering back that far from the IPCC AR progression.

dan no longer in CA
November 10, 2016 9:28 pm

Maybe then a quote from James Hansen that the East Side Parkway in Manhattan will be underwater in 20 years due to sea level rise, which quote was from ~18 years ago, and couple it with a photo of the current traffic on that same parkway.

Reply to  dan no longer in CA
November 11, 2016 6:42 am

It was the West Side Highway and 40 years in the original interview. Subsequently (2002) he wrote the following about NYC:
“New York City has over 600 miles of coastline. Its infrastructure is closely connected to the coastal areas — highways, subways, tunnels, sewage, sanitation facilities, power plants and factories are all located adjacent to waterways. Severe flooding with increased frequency could flood the FDR Drive, the West Side Highway, West Street, Battery Park, sections of East Harlem, Coney Island and entire neighborhoods in Staten Island. Almost the entire subway system in NYC is underground and is potentially vulnerable to flooding as well.
(my emphasis)
Here’s a photo of the West Side Highway underwater in 2012:
His prediction was on the money.

Reply to  Phil.
November 11, 2016 9:51 am

Ummm, that was from hurricane Sandy !! D’oh !

Reply to  Phil.
November 12, 2016 6:52 am

Exactly. What do you think he was referring to when he talks about flooding of coastal areas? There was a storm surge and the West Side Highway flooded.

dan no longer in CA
November 10, 2016 9:36 pm

I don’t have a link, but showing the several thousand historical temperature and CO2 plots that show an 800 year lag from temp to CO2 concentration. Then show how Al Gore reversed the slide. (Was it an 800 year lag or 8000 years?) Can someone find that plot please?

November 10, 2016 9:39 pm

Ask him to watch the BBC’s historical anecdotes to weather forecasts immediately following the Brexit vote and tread carefully. He has decades of extreme indoctrination to undo, much of it badly affecting the young. But I’m sure he knows that already. Frog icons to the rescue again maybe – ribbit, ribbit.

November 10, 2016 10:00 pm

Excellent testimony from Prof. Curry

Presentation slides of Prof. Curry including one with Donald Trump

November 10, 2016 11:37 pm

“How much global warming will we cause, and by when?
Answer: Not a lot, not soon, and perhaps not ever.”
Answer: There is not a shred of EVIDENCE that man will ever produce ANY global warming at all.

Reply to  Tony
November 11, 2016 12:09 am

Well, the adjustments that show the warming in the US are anthropogenic.comment image

Reply to  Zeke
November 13, 2016 1:25 pm

too funny.. 4 years later and its still not published
Gergis also took 4 years

November 11, 2016 1:03 am

It is necessary to move slowly (over the course of a year or so) on many matters. The most important thing is not to put all the weight on making a case-closed argument to the public, but rather to make the other side an offer it can’t refuse: a challenge to debates (between pro and con scientists and economists) on the dozen or so aspects of the CAGW claim.
There are many opinion leaders and non-climate scientists who have been convinced by the CAGW movement. A first step should be to split them off from the opposition, to weaken the enemy and lessen his chance of making a counter-attack (e.g., by rallying millions of influential voices to sign open letters in newspapers, attend huge protests, etc.). Such a counterattack is likely to occur and succeed unless a massive re-education project is undertaken for at least a year before a massive rollback is attempted. Demanding a debate isn’t something that can be objected to. It must be done before a 180-degree turn in policy is attempted.

Reply to  rogerknights
November 11, 2016 2:41 am

No, they are convinced by the scientific evidence.
show people the state of the arctic sea ice and they will be convinced, if their political principles or financial interest does not override their ability to appreciate scientific evidence

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 3:09 am

“No, they are convinced by the scientific evidence.”
No Griff, they have avoided looking at the scientific evidence..
the real evidence is way too destructive of the AGW scam for them, or you , to go anywhere near.
You avoid real evidence like it was your Granny’s belt.

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 3:18 am

“No, they are convinced by the scientific evidence.”
Yep, show them the prior history of the Arctic Sea Ice, and the FCAT that the current level is actually quite high compared to the zero summer sea ice of much of the Holocene, …
…and they will certainly be convinced that the whole AGW anti-CO2 agenda is a non-scientific SCAM.
But you will continue to ignore any real science, won’t you Griff..
You will remain wilfully ignorant, to the very end.

Nigel S
Reply to  Griff
November 12, 2016 8:46 am

Not that tiny yacht with the enormous diesel engine and the huge tanks again!

Reply to  Griff
November 19, 2016 1:57 am

If that doesn’t work, show them the hot spot! /sarc

November 11, 2016 1:12 am

Somebody upstream called Lord Monkton “a gentleman and a scholar”.
What has he done to be subjected to such disgusting insults?
I think apologies are the very least that should be offered to him.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
November 11, 2016 2:00 am

The tone of those Wikileaks emails is of people soiling their underpants in glee. Let’s leave them without toilet paper. They want a wipe: go to Madonna’s ceremonies.

Dodgy Geezer
November 11, 2016 2:28 am

I have a very modest proposal.
Steve McIntyre pointed out that the politicians were not really the ones to blame and target. So long as the establishment scientists presented Global Warming as a major proven threat, the politicians really had no choice but to take notice of it.
So I suggest that the President-elect commissions some basic research into the predictions made by the Warmist hypothesis. In particular, looking for increased temperatures and CO2 concentration in the Troposphere, increased humidity acting as a positive feedback and so on. This ought not to cost a lot. The difficulty will be in finding researchers willing to tell the truth about their findings. I suggest employing people who are at the end of their careers, well established and unlikely to be bribed. Perhaps James Lovelock would like to act the part of Richard Feynman…
If Global Warming is really happening then it is right to be concerned about it. But the scientific evidence seems to me to be very poor, and if Trump wants to reverse the trend towards de-industrialising humanity he needs to start by showing that the ‘proofs’ are wrong…

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
November 11, 2016 2:40 am

And you’ll find exactly what berkeley earth found, yes, CO2 is warming the planet and yes the temp series can be relied on
and you won’t find any scientists of note or ability who can’t see the evidence and draw the same conclusions.
(Lovelock is a bit batty to start with: you really wouldn’t want to rely on him these days, alas…)
why do you think that the overwhelming majority of world science accepts the science of climate change? In India, china, Europe, US, etc?
Can all scientists in all countries really be corrupt, in it for grants? It defies belief…

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 2:48 am

Well, yes the ones in work can.
Most of the scientists who are looking properly at the data and trying to work out what is actually happening are retired.

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 2:59 am

They found it using “regional expectation”.
Only a few mouthy, paid-for scientist are corrupt..
They do not become “climate scientists™” unless they are.

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 3:30 am

“India, china, Europe, US”
The 4 BIGGEST users of coal and gas in the whole world.. and ALL of them will be increasing that usage for many years to come.
So DON’T WORRY, Griff , there will be plenty and plenty of atmospheric CO2 for a long, long time.
And there is NOTHING your child-mind ranting can do about it. 🙂

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 4:29 am

Except gently point out the facts Andy…
That is: the change in tack from India and China and the immense benefit to their GDP from making and installing renewables.
The USA just handed the lead in the new industrial revolution to the new kids on the block…

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 6:28 am

People ! Please just quit replying to the child. I wouldn’t take advise from my own young adult, especially since they are still young, without the experience of wisdom. Please quit replying to him.
Think of all those times when you told your YOUNG ADULT child that they might be making a mistake and then they come back and tell you ” you were right”.
He’s/she’s not to going to say ” you were right” EVER.
Only real adults will ever admit to being wrong.

Duncan McNeil
November 11, 2016 3:37 am

The President of the USA should insist that an scientific evidence that is used to inform or influence government policy should be conducted under the American Red Team/Blue Team philosophy. This would ensure a robust investigation of new work would take place before any new papers/discussions reach the public eye. And strangely enough, it would put the scientific method back into scientific investigation.

Reply to  Duncan McNeil
November 11, 2016 6:09 am

We could call it ‘peer review’ perhaps

Non Nomen
November 11, 2016 3:38 am

My submission woud be:
Q:Warmer is better?
A:Sit on your porch in summer and sit there in winter. Then take the decision

November 11, 2016 4:02 am

Griff “:It defies belief” just look at DDT “Ecological Sanity” by Clause describes the outrageous fraud that occurred there as witnessed by an environmentalist /water purity scientist.

November 11, 2016 4:47 am

The earth changed from ice age to interglacial 4 times in the last 1 Ma years, and it did it all on its own without influence of mankind. Estimates of temperature change involved in temperate areas 10 – 15 Deg C. Estimate of change in tropics. 5 Deg C. Sub-tropics, variable 5 – 7 Deg C or 7 – 10 Deg C.
Meanwhile latest estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 (TRC or ECS) is around 1.5 Deg C.
Ergo natural variation is possibly an order of magnitude greater than effects of CO2.
Secondly, a plot by Marita Noon showing a close relationship with increased GDP and increased energy usage.
As another approach, the Paris initiative originally wanted any future CAGW to be limited to 2 Deg C then morphed to 1.5 Deg C. The latest sensitivity estimates of 1.5 Deg C essentially say we can burn all the hydrocarbons we want and still stay within the Paris Accord. That might be something easier for progressives to accept, if it ever required bipartisan approval.

November 11, 2016 5:27 am

I think something that has been missing from this debate is the nature of science, something that I taught for several years as a science teacher. Science is not based on consensus because the consensus is sometimes incredibly wrong. For an example of this search Barry Marshall stomach ulcers. Even on our side of the debate we have a tendency to trot out our ‘experts’ whom rightly so, do not believe in AGW. Science is not about belief. It is about facts and evidence. If we show Trump (and regular critically thinking people) the facts and evidence about the lack of AGW and the benefits of higher atmospheric CO2, we can win them over.

Reply to  Eric
November 11, 2016 6:08 am

The position you are adopting is that science is always wrong and a new piece of research like the stomach ulcer cause research will always be coming along to overturn it
Whereas that is very much the exception and in nearly every case further research builds on to and consolidates what’s there before.
The observed evidence for warming is quite plain. Its just some people have a politically based objection to the results and their implications

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 6:59 am

Griff is for Graft

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 7:18 am

Griff: Did you miss the word “sometimes”?

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 7:20 am

Griff: PS. Of course it is warming. We are, you know, in an interglacial period during which it warms until it doesn’t. Consider the guy p*ssing off the end of the wharf and thinking he is causing the tide to come in.

Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 11:09 am

Science is not right or wrong; it is impartial. A hypothesis can be wrong if you disprove it with appropriate evidence and follow scientific method. In fact, that’s how scientific inquiry works. You make a hypothesis basis on what you think is right. You then test it and try to disprove it. If you can disprove it, you then modify or throw it out. If you cannot disprove it, it stands. The people why climate alarmists have it so wrong. They have no intention of disproving their hypothesis. They only cherry pick evidence that supports their hypothesis and ignore the vast body of evidence that goes against their hypothesis.
And please, actually do the search on Barry Marshall. It was not just a ‘new piece of research’. After being mocked and ridiculed by the Medical Establishment, he disproved their hypothesis that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and diet and proved his hypothesis that they are caused by heliobacter pylori (if I correctly recall the name of the bacteria) and today standard, effective treatment is a round of antibiotics. He eventually won a Nobel Prize for his work.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Griff
November 11, 2016 5:05 pm

“The observed evidence for warming.” I have been on this planet for 65 years, and I haven’t observed anything except urban heat island effect. No land has been inundated by rising seas. (And the Dutch are not in the least anxious over this.) The seasons have their typical temperatures. The flora and fauna haven’t changed (except maybe an increase in the population of opossums–which is what they do). Maybe the winters aren’t quite so bitter cold. How could that be a problem? Maybe the next ice age has been delayed a few centuries? How could THAT be a problem?
I am getting rather testy on this point because there is no point in arguing over solutions IF THERE IS NO PRESENT PROBLEM. The nearly 20-year hiatus in global temperature anomaly rise is evidence enough that the “global warming” theory is bunk (increasing CO2, flatline temperature). This whole concern is built on pretty graphs that are the product of a fevered imagination, certainly not on firm data and validated theory.
I’m saying nothing that hasn’t already been said by better exponents of truth and reason. But sometimes we give nonsense too much credit by pretending it isn’t actually nonsense.
Griff, unless you have actual professional or academic involvement in science, it would be better if you did not pretend to be its defender. I run into too many earnest ignoramuses who fancy themselves the defenders of science–but they couldn’t tell a proton from a pro tem.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Eric
November 11, 2016 12:52 pm

Access to the President is everything. With Holdren as his Science Advisor, Obama was fed the koolaid.

Reply to  Eric
November 13, 2016 1:24 pm

except you have no facts to show
AR6 will be produced under Trumps watch
you will own every bit of science in that document

November 11, 2016 5:44 am

I would suggest a third illuminating question:
Using climate alarmists’ own numbers, what would be the temperature reduction resulting from our ~$1Trillion climate “investment”?
The answer would be found 2 places to the right of the decimal point.

November 11, 2016 6:00 am

How Trump should react to ANY question concerning green climate craze? This: https://youtu.be/T1XgFsitnQw
I shall say no more.

November 11, 2016 7:17 am

Just musing. Imagine an air force limited to electric power. Instead of tanker aircraft for refueling, it would be an airborne generator powered by solar power. Fighter aircraft? Too demanding of high energy inputs. Tanks? With battlefield solar/wind recharge stations. Troop carriers? Ditto, but be careful that the lithium batteries don’t get penetrated by hostile fire.
No petroleum products? Bear grease for lubricating axles.
This may be the sinister objective of the greenies: Disarmament.

Reply to  JimB
November 11, 2016 1:18 pm

The objective is population reduction and control. Disarmament is a necessary precondition – as the you-know-who’s demonstrated. WWI was fuelled by coal. WWII was fuelled by oil. Any fuel is a potential weapon: a bottle of vodka can defeat a tank. So all fuels are being systematically attacked/withdrawn. COSHH regulations played an important part. The electrification of transport is to eliminate petrol. Alcohol is being watered down. Sugar? (Idk, I’m not a chemist.)

November 11, 2016 7:36 am

I think I would have a slide on mitigation to give an idea about just how big a problem it is.
Just saying we can make electricity out of free sunlight does not give the whole story although that is what appeals to the greenies. I think I calculated once that the US would need about 16,000 Ivanpah-sized facilities to produce all its energy (not just electricity).
That might sound practical but you also need to factor in the lifetime of the plants. Assuming they last for 30+ years, it means you end up having to build them at a rate of more than one a day for ever. They are about six square miles each and are made from lots of concrete, metal and nasty chemicals.

Reply to  graphicconception
November 11, 2016 1:21 pm

“the US would need about 16,000 Ivanpah-sized facilities”
Not with the rationing the UN has in mind; 1 lightbulb, 1 radio.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Sleepalot
November 11, 2016 4:53 pm

And the radio tuned to the UN channel.

Jeff Alberts
November 11, 2016 8:19 am

Charts needed are those showing so-called extreme weather activity and how such has decreased in the age of Global Weirding instead of increaseing. Also show things like Glacier National Park, and how most of the glacial retreat occurred before 1950 (Such things are conveniently left out of alarmist images, they only show pictures of the last maximum, then now.)

November 11, 2016 8:29 am

Why do any of you think that Trump needs to be convinced of anything? He is already fully onboard that the whole GW/CC/GCD industry is a sham. Just shut down funding for politicized science, for the IPCC and for Agenda 21, and move on to more important things.

November 11, 2016 9:13 am

All you have to do is look at what the min and max temperature averages for the last 60 years to see it’s not from co2.

November 11, 2016 12:09 pm

“at Stanford for the Hewlett Foundation. The project focuses on “Setting the Climate Agenda for our Next President”. It is bipartisan in nature” … yes very bipartisan, both liberal and ultra liberal.

Burks Smith
November 11, 2016 12:41 pm

Trump answered Hillary in one of the debates, that, “The hoax of Global Warming is thinking that we can do anything about it.” I doubt he will engage at all, except to back out of what Obama has done.

Reply to  Burks Smith
November 13, 2016 1:23 pm


Svend Ferdinandsen
November 11, 2016 12:43 pm

2. Is the cost of mitigation today less than that of adaptation the day after tomorrow?
Answer: No. It is 1-3 orders of magnitude costlier to mitigate than to adapt.
The third question would be: What would mitigation help?
Answer: Very little and with minor confidence.
It is still not resolved to a meaningfull level how much CO2 influences the climate, so any mitigation with CO2 reduction is even less known. CO2 mitigation could even trigger a tipping point to an ice age, just to make alarm in the opposite direction.

November 11, 2016 1:40 pm

I am going to go way out on a limb and submit to Lord Monckton the following NASA OCO-2 chart:

Description: “Scientists have produced the first global maps of human emissions of carbon dioxide ever made solely from satellite observations of the greenhouse gas. The maps, based on data from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) satellite and generated with a new data-processing technique, agree well with inventories of known carbon dioxide emissions.
No satellite before OCO-2 was capable of measuring carbon dioxide in fine enough detail to allow researchers to create maps of human emissions from the satellite data alone. Instead, earlier maps also incorporated estimates from economic data and modeling results.
The team of scientists from the Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, produced three main maps from OCO-2 data, each centered on one of Earth’s highest-emitting regions: the eastern United States, central Europe and East Asia. The maps show widespread carbon dioxide across major urban areas and smaller pockets of high emissions.”

Perhaps the President-elect will ask the question, “What are the natural sources of CO2?” And I think he will get that data for himself.
Now remember Steven Goddard’s articles on WUWT in 2010 when the Iceland volcano erupted, and the press was reporting several orders of magnitude less emissions than there were. What would Donald J Trump say if he found out that a volcanic eruption can emit more ghg and halogens in one week than the entire UK economy produces in a year? I think he will not be impressed by NASA satellites graphing human-caused CO2.
And I also have noticed that the Aleutian Islands and Alaska have been experiencing a lot of earthquake activity. There are swarms of earthquakes of smaller magnitude happening up there (and in CA), and today the swarms are extending along the full length of the island chain.

November 11, 2016 5:12 pm

As far as I can tell, we don’t need any slides – your work is done. Trump has obviously been listening to you and the other great, determined, and PATIENT people. *THANKYOU*

La Grenouille
November 11, 2016 8:42 pm

I have corresponded with Anthony about the necessity of a briefing for some people (no particulars given so the climate alarmists do not get ideas). I have a list of the graphs and data to include and somewhat of an order. I have been working 12-16 hours a day for the last two years, and often weekends, so I have had no time to expand it. You can get my email from Anthony and we can exchange ideas….the topic is too long for this post.
La Grenouille du désert.

November 11, 2016 10:29 pm

Lord Monckton. 1) Include something on NOAA and NASA adjustments to the raw data. Especially if it can be verified that the discrepancies between raw and adjusted values match the CO2 record. If they are manipulating the data to manufacture a co2-driven temperature record (to create ‘evidence’ of a co2 ‘control knob’) then they must be held to account. 2) urge a major major counter alarmist punch on the PR front. 3) a major new direction on grant funding. Declare open season on the man-made climate change hypothesis and divert the remainder of funds to other sciences 4) get the federal ‘scientists’ at NASA and NOAA to releaee all methodological records. Seize their computers if need be. Those scientists work for the people of the u.s.a. They have no right to hide behind cynical politicking. Show us the methodology.