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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes that pesky Trump thing, I wonder how all those large donors to the Clinton Foundation were feeling late Tuesday evening?
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???
@ur momisugly 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.
I think the Clinton Foundation will be renamed the Clinton Legal Defense Fund. 🙂
They probably felt like inciting riots.
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
Observation:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPGChYUUeuc/VLhzJqwRhtI/AAAAAAAAAS4/ehDtihKNKIw/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png
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).
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.
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.
“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?
Indeed, very good points by Mosher. I’d also add more ocean based measurements and observations, as this is lacking at the moment, massively.
“I agree with Mr MacDonald that Mr Mosher has made some constructive suggestions. Rebalancing research efforts away from failed modeling…..”
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.
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.
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
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.
“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:
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.
first, drop the phrase “orders of magnitude”…you will have lost them at this point.
Suggest the more succinct:
“Answer: No. It costs far more to mitigate than to adapt.”
“Answer: No. It costs far more to mitigate than to adapt.”
PC talk is no more: stupendously more, not far more.
tegirinenashi Wisdom is to use words that will be heard, not dismissed out of hand.
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
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.
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
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
Except they’ll find the data stands up and there are no whistle blowers because there is nothing to blow about
“there is nothing to blow about”
Yet that is all you seem able to do !!
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.
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?
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.
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).
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
After a fifty year cooling trend.
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/GISS_US_2016.png
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?
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
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.
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?
..Hillary is in hiding, because she does not want to get the Harry Reid “exercise equipment” payback..?
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.
And you should tell them the demonization of CO2 is over.
Bingo!
Pass out buttons and bumper stickers: “CO2 is NOT a Problem”
Except, of course, it is…
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.
okay
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.
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
Typo: “Answers your two questions as we want them answered”
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
you are a very excitable fellow, to be sure!
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?
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.
We don’t do “spirit cooking” !! 🙂
(Google John Podesta + spirit meals)
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/
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.
You gotta add some climate phds. Maybe Lindzen for one?
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
“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.
Show a photo of poor people burning cow pies to cook.
Oh, sorry. I did not mean the cookies. I meant the dried excrement of animals, aka manure..
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.