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.
socialism by the corrupt back door
Justin Trudeau, Gerald Butts and Catherine MacKenna need to be educated with the material in this brief. So does Kathleen Wynne.
Just today Trudeau vowed to go ahead with carbon taxes.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-environment-energy-ambrose-1.3845889
And speaking of Canada, they want to lead off with this Canadian ex-pat who was run out of Michigan (finally);
“We’re inviting former Governor Jennifer Granholm….” (She left Michigan immediately after leaving office and went to California where all “right thinking” people live.)
Tell them to read “The Grapes of Wrath”.
As most of the global fear mongering was based on a “cost/benefit” analysis of rising CO2 that only looked at costs and ignored benefits, how about some points on what CO2 does for life on earth and the measurable improvements we see with rising concentrations (greening, improved crop growth, increased drought tolerance, overall increased biomass).
President Elect Donald J. Trump’s policies are posted at http://www.greatagain.gov See Energy Independence. https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/energy-independence.html
David J. Hayes is a fruitcake. He can’t see the sun setting or rising. He hopes in one hand and shits in the other and wishes that the hope hand fills faster.
Just have President The Donald TRY to read one of the Climate Assessment Reports prepared by the Executive Branch Agencies wasting time on topics outside their charters.
With a guy like Trump, you want to show him facts in terms that that he personally relates to:
1. Show him sea level rise versus the Trump Tower.
2. Show him temperature rise in terms of the cooling/heating bill for the Trump Tower.
3. Show him choice quotes from IPCC leadership in terms of wealth transfer. I suggest in particular:
“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG-3
4. Show him that even the IPCC doesn’t believe their own alarmism and that according to THEM we have much bigger agents of change on the horizon than climate. Table 10:10 in this thread lays it all out. Heh, you could even take Richard Tol along to explain it:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/01/we-have-bigger-problems-than-climate-change-so-sayeth-ipcc-ar5/
5. Show him CO2 fertilization in terms of revenue increases to the US from agricultural exports.
…and so and and so forth.
..All you “Never Trumpers”, think about it…Hillary spent just over 1 BILLION dollars of other peoples money and lost….Trump spent just under 800 million dollars, half of it his own PERSONAL money….and he won !!
Who would you rather have controlling the purse strings of America ?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/
He certainly didn’t spend anywhere close to $400million of his own money!
I heard Trump say a couple of days ago that he had spent a little over $100 million of his own personal money on the campaign.
I guess that’s even more bang for the buck!
Hillary spent over $2 Billion of OPM (Other People’s Money), minus what she, Bill and Chelsea raked off for themselves.
Some of those OPs being the poorest of the poor in Haiti.
..No matter who you voted for, you have to admit, Melania will be the most beautiful First Lady to ever grace the White House…IMHO…
And the smartest: She told us Donald didn’t lose.
Would Jackie Kennedy not be in the running?
http://66.media.tumblr.com/0b6b51e52c808957a3dd4b8956182552/tumblr_mq17xu84j11sza4eco2_1280.jpg
Bill Hewlett must be flipping over in his grave. His fortune being used by useful liberal idiots to sabotage the great country he loved.
…along with all the other industrialist foundations. It appears to be cancerous.
Keep it short and to the point. Trump is an executive summary type of guy. I like your points 1 and 2. I suggest
3. How sure are we about any of this?
Answer = not very
Lord Monckton:
The presentation slide that I think should be included are:
A) A slide that highlights the near total lack of actual achievement per dollar spent on climate projects, grants and research. The world is allegedly in trouble; emergency methods must be delivered. Only none of the methods are subjected to Return on Investment (ROI) accounting standards.
B) a slide that highlights climate expenditures to date, are massive fund grants without oversight or deliverables. Climate expenditures disguise or outright bury ongoing costs, e.g. dead birds, bats, maintenance fleet, energy used to manufacture mine, mill, fabricate components, etc.)
C) All climate/infrastructure/energy efforts require origination to end-of-life costs and ROI.
D) Elimination of travel budgets used for climatology luxury alleged business trips.
My briefing:
1. How much global warming will we cause, and by when?
Answer: Hopefully not a lot; certainly less than alarmists fear and certainly not soon.
2. Is the cost of mitigation today less than that of adaptation the day after tomorrow?
Answer: Who knows? It depends on the discount rate, climate sensitivity, and many other unknowns. Without binding and enforceable international treaties (which the less developed world and the US Senate won’t sign), mitigation isn’t going to help much. Looking at the “progress” since Kyoto (a fifth of a century)! However, if you and your successors manage our economy properly, our citizens who will be forced to adapt to whatever is coming will be far richer than today’s. (If not, Americans will be dealing with far bigger problems than climate change.) With luck, new technology will contribute significantly to minimizing the coming problem. Let’s focus our resources on programs that are more likely to help Americans.
Have you seen the temperature record on the South Pole
http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/gjma/amundsen-scott.ann.trend.pdf
It is beautiful!
tegirinenashi: Over most of the planet, OLR decreases with altitude (and GHE concentration) because temperature and therefore emission (but not absorption) decrease with temperature. However, there is no decrease in temperature with altitude over the South Pole, and therefore no enhanced GHE. If the South Pole were warming, it would only be because warmer air from elsewhere was being convected to the South Pole, not because of radiative forcing from rising GHGs. A strong vortex around the South Pole tends to isolate the air over the South Pole. It is beautiful.
The same phenomena occurs in the stratosphere, where the temperature also rises with altitude. Rising GHGs cause more radiative cooling to space from the stratosphere and lowers temperature. Unfortunately, little of our atmosphere lies over the South Pole and above the tropopause and rising GHGs have and will cause some warming.
Frank
2) Is the cost of mitigation today less than the of adaptation the day after tomorrow?
2) Answer: Who knows?
We know. Global warming is a fraud. There will be nothing to adapt to. Stop pretending it is real and the world will stop wasting resources. You are just a hothead in disguise.
Eugene WR Gallun
Eugene: While claims of alarmists may be fraudulent or exaggerated, the theory of radiative forcing is sound (and believed by the host of this blog and many contributors). However, unforced variability (which is a common phenomena in chaotic systems) during the Pause and the 1960s likely obscured the warming expected from radiative forcing and enhanced warming during 1975-1998 and 1920-1940. Unforced or natural variability has also caused warm and cool periods such as the LIA, MWP and RWP documented in ice cores and elsewhere. Given the record of VARIABILITY in climate, the lack of warming since 2000 can’t DISPROVE anything about GHG-mediated warming. Laboratory experiments tell us how radiation interacts with GHGs.
In the future, the diminishing activity of the sun could herald the beginning of another LIA, but that would provide only about 1 degC of cooling. We’ve already seen about 0.6 degC of warming since 1950 – or perhaps 0.5 degC if you look at the raw data before homogenization. UAH and Argo are also showing warming. Even another LIA – if one came – probably won’t suppress all of the warming expected from radiative forcing from rising GHGs.
Climate science has certainly been corrupted by politics. Climate models are unvalidated and contain numerous parameters that can be tuned to produce a wide range of warming. We don’t know how much warming rising CO2 will cause (climate sensitivity) nor how much natural and unforced variability will enhance or diminish that warming. However, the theory of radiative forcing originated long before politics began to corrupt climate science. Chances are low that this theory will ever be proven wrong.
Podesta can go ahead with the gathering and call it “The Meeting of the Formers.”
Lord Mockton will not be presidential adviser but i would love to see him invited to the White House and given the red carpet treatment. Maybe let him carry back the bust of Winston Churchill.
Eugene WR Gallun
Slides and video for Pres. Trump
http://images.slideplayer.com/12/3523741/slides/slide_29.jpg
Yeah, that’s the chart! Show Trump that chart. Give him a copy he can carry around in his briefcase.
Here’s another chart you can show Trump:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2016_v6.gif
Tell him to look at the chart closely and he can see that the climate alarmist meme of “hotter and hotter” and “hottest year evah!” is not true according to the satellite data. The only “hottest year evah” since 1998, might be 2016. The years in between are just also-rans, yet NASA and NOAA promoted them as being years that were getting hotter and hotter, and each year was hotter than the preceding year. This UAH chart demonstrates that all that climate change propaganda is false. It’s plain to see, especially if you point it out for them.
NASA/NOAA couldn’t do their “hotter and hotter” and “hottest year evah!’ using the UAH chart, so they had to bastardized the surface temperature chart so that it followed the climate change narrative, and presented a false picture of reality. So who are you going to believe UAH, or GISS?
The conclusion that “It is 1-3 orders of magnitude costlier to mitigate than to adapt” would have to be based upon a model that: a) is not cross validated and b) conveys no information to us about the conditional outcomes of events. I can say this safely as there is currently no climate model that does not have these characteristics. Thus, to reach any conclusion other than that no conclusion is currently possible about the action that should be taken in response to the evidence. The research on the “global warming” phenomenon has been mismanaged.
Keeping it simple. The proposition is: Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.
Mike van Biezen’s essay on this theme is summarized and illustrated here: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/10/03/the-climate-story-illustrated-2/
Kiss. Keep it simple …. get the american people on board by explaining the negative aspects of so called green energy, ie the
Now legal slaughter of our national symbol, the eagle by less than useless windmills, ot hey al HA HA!
Except the figures on eagle deaths are misrepresented.
Go find the population estimates of US golden/bald eagles.
Cross reference with claimed wind turbine deaths of eagles.
“Except the figures on eagle deaths are misrepresented.”
Yep, they have people who go out and clean up the mess, so the count is kept as low as possible.
Donald Trump 306 votes to Hillary Clinton’s 232 votes!
Give us a big smile please, Griff. 🙂
I’m sending America my best wishes…
The many Americans I know are people of open hearts and goodwill and I’m sure that’ll carry them through the tempestuous times ahead
Griff, the Obama administration is allowing the windmill farms to kill up to 4,000 Bald Eagles a year legally.
I saw a news clip this morning about a Bald Eagle in distress, and the efforts the local citizens went to to save it. And then I think, they will release the Bald Eagle in the wild and it will fly right into a windmill. I wonder what the people who rescued that Bald Eagle would think if they took a stroll through the grounds of a windmill farm. House of Horrors, I would think.
4,000 Bald Eagles a year. I suppose if windmills kill more than 4,000 Bald Eagles, the Obama administration will increase the legal limit.
That’s not counting the flamers at Ivanpah.
1) For the most part of geological history, CO2 concentration has been much higher than today.
2) At 400 ppm of CO2, plants are growth inhibited. Ideally, it should be around 1,200 ppm.
3) Ask greenhouse vegetable producers, why they supplement it with CO2.
+1.
And show the logarithmic effect of increasing CO2.
I can’t feel good about this post because the House of Lords WAS reformed.
I would start with the plot of global temperature and CO2 concentration back to the precambrian period. Here’s an example:
Notice there is no correlation. Then, I would then pick from the climategate emails http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf the statements that “We have to make the med evil Warm Period go away” coupled with the historical plots covering back that far from the IPCC AR progression.
Maybe then a quote from James Hansen that the East Side Parkway in Manhattan will be underwater in 20 years due to sea level rise, which quote was from ~18 years ago, and couple it with a photo of the current traffic on that same parkway.
It was the West Side Highway and 40 years in the original interview. Subsequently (2002) he wrote the following about NYC:
“New York City has over 600 miles of coastline. Its infrastructure is closely connected to the coastal areas — highways, subways, tunnels, sewage, sanitation facilities, power plants and factories are all located adjacent to waterways. Severe flooding with increased frequency could flood the FDR Drive, the West Side Highway, West Street, Battery Park, sections of East Harlem, Coney Island and entire neighborhoods in Staten Island. Almost the entire subway system in NYC is underground and is potentially vulnerable to flooding as well.
(my emphasis)
Here’s a photo of the West Side Highway underwater in 2012:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121030073448-sandy-flooding-west-side-highway-c1-main.jpg
His prediction was on the money.
Ummm, that was from hurricane Sandy !! D’oh !
Exactly. What do you think he was referring to when he talks about flooding of coastal areas? There was a storm surge and the West Side Highway flooded.
I don’t have a link, but showing the several thousand historical temperature and CO2 plots that show an 800 year lag from temp to CO2 concentration. Then show how Al Gore reversed the slide. (Was it an 800 year lag or 8000 years?) Can someone find that plot please?