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.

clip_image002

Podesta

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

John:

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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
John W. Garrett

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

J McClure

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.
WOW!!!!

pameladragon

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

J McClure

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

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

Dave Fair

Clear your browser’s history.

Phil R

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….

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)

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.

Sabastian

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

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.

TA

“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.

@ TA…Noscript is a great tool.

J McClure

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

David

Because commies

ilfptm

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.

Jer0me

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

Hemisphereist

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

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

RWturner

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?

JohnKnight

(Thanks for the chuckle, Steve : )

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

richardX

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

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

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.

inmark,
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…
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPGChYUUeuc/VLhzJqwRhtI/AAAAAAAAAS4/ehDtihKNKIw/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png

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

FTOP_T

dbstealey,
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.

higley7

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.

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

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

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

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

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

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

“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.”

Griff

Senator McCarthy! you’re back!

RockyRoad

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.

Here are a couple polls showing how little people really care about climate change.
Gallup (U.S.) – Most Important Problem:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
U.N. (International) – Public Priorities:
http://data.myworld2015.org/

Jim Simasko

Send someone else.

Lord Mockton being brief and to the point.

joelobryan

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.

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

Steve Case

 
           Green Mob
 
 

Harry Passfield

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

TA

“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

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?

Christopher,
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.

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

Marcus

..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

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

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.

Paul,
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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
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…

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

+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.

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.

lewispbuckingham

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.

David L. Hagen

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

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

TA

“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

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

Marcus

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

Fred Ohr

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.

rogerknights

aka E.M. Smith.

“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

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.

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!..

RW

On the costs issue, bring in Bjorn Lomborg.

Jimmy Haigh

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

“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.

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.

Joe

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

TA

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. 🙂
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/president-elect-trump-invites-british-prime-minister-for-a-visit-231177
“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

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.

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.

Marcus

..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

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).

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…

Greg

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.

+1

Hot under the collar

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

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.

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!

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

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.

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

Greg

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.

+1

Yes, definitely. +10

RW

+100

Ed Zuiderwijk

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.

Install Sarah Palin as head of the EPA.

Rob

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

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

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

techgm

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

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

James Francisco

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.

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

@ 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

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

bwdave

They probably felt like inciting riots.

Kevin Schurig

Calling their “associates” Moose and Rocko.

Wow
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
ACTUAL FIELD TESTING OF MICRO SITE
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

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
Tufte.
read him

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

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

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

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.

AndyG55

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

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

“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.

” 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?

John

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

Toneb

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

RW

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

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

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

Thanks.
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

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

RW

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

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

siamiam

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.

TA

“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:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2016_v6.gif
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

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

David L. Hagen

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

tegirinenashi

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

David L. Hagen

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

Mike the Morlock

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.
michael

Bill Illis

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.

lewispbuckingham

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.’

Science Advances.. Nov 18..
karl vindicated

AndyG55

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

wait for it.. or deny data you havent seen

Griff

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

AndyG55

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

Dave Fair

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.

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

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?

RW

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

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).

Rob

What climate change?

Rob:
“What Climate Change?”
Plus 1.0 deg. C. since 1970
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Jan-Dec GLOBAL Land-ocean Temperature Index

Rob
sailboarder

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!

Burl Henry,
Why does your chart stop at 1980? This chart covers from 1880 – 2015:
http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2015/10/Global-2-copy.jpg
What’s the problem?

TA

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.
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/GISS_US_2016.png

Notanist

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.

nc

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?

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

Marcus

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

CheshireRed

The single bulls eye issue is climate sensitivity, so choose images that demonstrate;
1. It’s low,
and
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.

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.
CLIMATE 101
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

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

Griff

Except, of course, it is…

Malcolm S

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.

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.

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

okay

mandrake9

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:
http://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening/
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.

gbees

Slides:
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

mandrake9

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

John Loop

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?

Ryddegutt

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.

RSS?
trump cant fire Mears ding dong
http://www.remss.com/about/who-we-are

AndyG55

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

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.

Ryddegutt

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.

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

Griff

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!

AndyG55

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

Griff

you are a very excitable fellow, to be sure!

Ryddegutt

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?

RW

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.

TRM

We don’t do “spirit cooking” !! 🙂

Sweet Old Bob

(Google John Podesta + spirit meals)

Nigel S

I use meths to light my paraffin stove, is that the same thing?
Valor Packaway, a thing of beauty is a joy forever.
http://classiccampstoves.com/threads/valor-packaway.14871/

john karajas

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.

chilemike

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

Griff

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

AndyG55

“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

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

John F. Hultquist

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

S Keith Jackson

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.