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.
Ask him to watch the BBC’s historical anecdotes to weather forecasts immediately following the Brexit vote and tread carefully. He has decades of extreme indoctrination to undo, much of it badly affecting the young. But I’m sure he knows that already. Frog icons to the rescue again maybe – ribbit, ribbit.
Excellent testimony from Prof. Curry
Presentation slides of Prof. Curry including one with Donald Trump
https://www.scribd.com/document/312245967/Judith-Curry-Climate-Change-Presentation-draft-version-10-May-2016
“How much global warming will we cause, and by when?
Answer: Not a lot, not soon, and perhaps not ever.”
Answer: There is not a shred of EVIDENCE that man will ever produce ANY global warming at all.
Well, the adjustments that show the warming in the US are anthropogenic.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf
too funny.. 4 years later and its still not published
Gergis also took 4 years
It is necessary to move slowly (over the course of a year or so) on many matters. The most important thing is not to put all the weight on making a case-closed argument to the public, but rather to make the other side an offer it can’t refuse: a challenge to debates (between pro and con scientists and economists) on the dozen or so aspects of the CAGW claim.
There are many opinion leaders and non-climate scientists who have been convinced by the CAGW movement. A first step should be to split them off from the opposition, to weaken the enemy and lessen his chance of making a counter-attack (e.g., by rallying millions of influential voices to sign open letters in newspapers, attend huge protests, etc.). Such a counterattack is likely to occur and succeed unless a massive re-education project is undertaken for at least a year before a massive rollback is attempted. Demanding a debate isn’t something that can be objected to. It must be done before a 180-degree turn in policy is attempted.
No, they are convinced by the scientific evidence.
show people the state of the arctic sea ice and they will be convinced, if their political principles or financial interest does not override their ability to appreciate scientific evidence
“No, they are convinced by the scientific evidence.”
No Griff, they have avoided looking at the scientific evidence..
the real evidence is way too destructive of the AGW scam for them, or you , to go anywhere near.
You avoid real evidence like it was your Granny’s belt.
“No, they are convinced by the scientific evidence.”
Yep, show them the prior history of the Arctic Sea Ice, and the FCAT that the current level is actually quite high compared to the zero summer sea ice of much of the Holocene, …
…and they will certainly be convinced that the whole AGW anti-CO2 agenda is a non-scientific SCAM.
But you will continue to ignore any real science, won’t you Griff..
You will remain wilfully ignorant, to the very end.
Not that tiny yacht with the enormous diesel engine and the huge tanks again!
If that doesn’t work, show them the hot spot! /sarc
Geeze!!!
Somebody upstream called Lord Monkton “a gentleman and a scholar”.
What has he done to be subjected to such disgusting insults?
I think apologies are the very least that should be offered to him.
The tone of those Wikileaks emails is of people soiling their underpants in glee. Let’s leave them without toilet paper. They want a wipe: go to Madonna’s ceremonies.
I have a very modest proposal.
Steve McIntyre pointed out that the politicians were not really the ones to blame and target. So long as the establishment scientists presented Global Warming as a major proven threat, the politicians really had no choice but to take notice of it.
So I suggest that the President-elect commissions some basic research into the predictions made by the Warmist hypothesis. In particular, looking for increased temperatures and CO2 concentration in the Troposphere, increased humidity acting as a positive feedback and so on. This ought not to cost a lot. The difficulty will be in finding researchers willing to tell the truth about their findings. I suggest employing people who are at the end of their careers, well established and unlikely to be bribed. Perhaps James Lovelock would like to act the part of Richard Feynman…
If Global Warming is really happening then it is right to be concerned about it. But the scientific evidence seems to me to be very poor, and if Trump wants to reverse the trend towards de-industrialising humanity he needs to start by showing that the ‘proofs’ are wrong…
And you’ll find exactly what berkeley earth found, yes, CO2 is warming the planet and yes the temp series can be relied on
and you won’t find any scientists of note or ability who can’t see the evidence and draw the same conclusions.
(Lovelock is a bit batty to start with: you really wouldn’t want to rely on him these days, alas…)
why do you think that the overwhelming majority of world science accepts the science of climate change? In India, china, Europe, US, etc?
Can all scientists in all countries really be corrupt, in it for grants? It defies belief…
Well, yes the ones in work can.
Most of the scientists who are looking properly at the data and trying to work out what is actually happening are retired.
They found it using “regional expectation”.
Only a few mouthy, paid-for scientist are corrupt..
They do not become “climate scientists™” unless they are.
“India, china, Europe, US”
The 4 BIGGEST users of coal and gas in the whole world.. and ALL of them will be increasing that usage for many years to come.
So DON’T WORRY, Griff , there will be plenty and plenty of atmospheric CO2 for a long, long time.
And there is NOTHING your child-mind ranting can do about it. 🙂
Except gently point out the facts Andy…
That is: the change in tack from India and China and the immense benefit to their GDP from making and installing renewables.
The USA just handed the lead in the new industrial revolution to the new kids on the block…
People ! Please just quit replying to the child. I wouldn’t take advise from my own young adult, especially since they are still young, without the experience of wisdom. Please quit replying to him.
Think of all those times when you told your YOUNG ADULT child that they might be making a mistake and then they come back and tell you ” you were right”.
He’s/she’s not to going to say ” you were right” EVER.
Only real adults will ever admit to being wrong.
The President of the USA should insist that an scientific evidence that is used to inform or influence government policy should be conducted under the American Red Team/Blue Team philosophy. This would ensure a robust investigation of new work would take place before any new papers/discussions reach the public eye. And strangely enough, it would put the scientific method back into scientific investigation.
We could call it ‘peer review’ perhaps
My submission woud be:
Q:Warmer is better?
A:Sit on your porch in summer and sit there in winter. Then take the decision
Griff “:It defies belief” just look at DDT “Ecological Sanity” by Clause describes the outrageous fraud that occurred there as witnessed by an environmentalist /water purity scientist.
The earth changed from ice age to interglacial 4 times in the last 1 Ma years, and it did it all on its own without influence of mankind. Estimates of temperature change involved in temperate areas 10 – 15 Deg C. Estimate of change in tropics. 5 Deg C. Sub-tropics, variable 5 – 7 Deg C or 7 – 10 Deg C.
Meanwhile latest estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 (TRC or ECS) is around 1.5 Deg C.
Ergo natural variation is possibly an order of magnitude greater than effects of CO2.
Secondly, a plot by Marita Noon showing a close relationship with increased GDP and increased energy usage.
As another approach, the Paris initiative originally wanted any future CAGW to be limited to 2 Deg C then morphed to 1.5 Deg C. The latest sensitivity estimates of 1.5 Deg C essentially say we can burn all the hydrocarbons we want and still stay within the Paris Accord. That might be something easier for progressives to accept, if it ever required bipartisan approval.
I think something that has been missing from this debate is the nature of science, something that I taught for several years as a science teacher. Science is not based on consensus because the consensus is sometimes incredibly wrong. For an example of this search Barry Marshall stomach ulcers. Even on our side of the debate we have a tendency to trot out our ‘experts’ whom rightly so, do not believe in AGW. Science is not about belief. It is about facts and evidence. If we show Trump (and regular critically thinking people) the facts and evidence about the lack of AGW and the benefits of higher atmospheric CO2, we can win them over.
The position you are adopting is that science is always wrong and a new piece of research like the stomach ulcer cause research will always be coming along to overturn it
Whereas that is very much the exception and in nearly every case further research builds on to and consolidates what’s there before.
The observed evidence for warming is quite plain. Its just some people have a politically based objection to the results and their implications
Griff is for Graft
Griff: Did you miss the word “sometimes”?
Griff: PS. Of course it is warming. We are, you know, in an interglacial period during which it warms until it doesn’t. Consider the guy p*ssing off the end of the wharf and thinking he is causing the tide to come in.
Science is not right or wrong; it is impartial. A hypothesis can be wrong if you disprove it with appropriate evidence and follow scientific method. In fact, that’s how scientific inquiry works. You make a hypothesis basis on what you think is right. You then test it and try to disprove it. If you can disprove it, you then modify or throw it out. If you cannot disprove it, it stands. The people why climate alarmists have it so wrong. They have no intention of disproving their hypothesis. They only cherry pick evidence that supports their hypothesis and ignore the vast body of evidence that goes against their hypothesis.
And please, actually do the search on Barry Marshall. It was not just a ‘new piece of research’. After being mocked and ridiculed by the Medical Establishment, he disproved their hypothesis that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and diet and proved his hypothesis that they are caused by heliobacter pylori (if I correctly recall the name of the bacteria) and today standard, effective treatment is a round of antibiotics. He eventually won a Nobel Prize for his work.
“The observed evidence for warming.” I have been on this planet for 65 years, and I haven’t observed anything except urban heat island effect. No land has been inundated by rising seas. (And the Dutch are not in the least anxious over this.) The seasons have their typical temperatures. The flora and fauna haven’t changed (except maybe an increase in the population of opossums–which is what they do). Maybe the winters aren’t quite so bitter cold. How could that be a problem? Maybe the next ice age has been delayed a few centuries? How could THAT be a problem?
I am getting rather testy on this point because there is no point in arguing over solutions IF THERE IS NO PRESENT PROBLEM. The nearly 20-year hiatus in global temperature anomaly rise is evidence enough that the “global warming” theory is bunk (increasing CO2, flatline temperature). This whole concern is built on pretty graphs that are the product of a fevered imagination, certainly not on firm data and validated theory.
I’m saying nothing that hasn’t already been said by better exponents of truth and reason. But sometimes we give nonsense too much credit by pretending it isn’t actually nonsense.
Griff, unless you have actual professional or academic involvement in science, it would be better if you did not pretend to be its defender. I run into too many earnest ignoramuses who fancy themselves the defenders of science–but they couldn’t tell a proton from a pro tem.
Access to the President is everything. With Holdren as his Science Advisor, Obama was fed the koolaid.
except you have no facts to show
AR6 will be produced under Trumps watch
you will own every bit of science in that document
I would suggest a third illuminating question:
Using climate alarmists’ own numbers, what would be the temperature reduction resulting from our ~$1Trillion climate “investment”?
The answer would be found 2 places to the right of the decimal point.
How Trump should react to ANY question concerning green climate craze? This: https://youtu.be/T1XgFsitnQw
I shall say no more.
Just musing. Imagine an air force limited to electric power. Instead of tanker aircraft for refueling, it would be an airborne generator powered by solar power. Fighter aircraft? Too demanding of high energy inputs. Tanks? With battlefield solar/wind recharge stations. Troop carriers? Ditto, but be careful that the lithium batteries don’t get penetrated by hostile fire.
No petroleum products? Bear grease for lubricating axles.
This may be the sinister objective of the greenies: Disarmament.
The objective is population reduction and control. Disarmament is a necessary precondition – as the you-know-who’s demonstrated. WWI was fuelled by coal. WWII was fuelled by oil. Any fuel is a potential weapon: a bottle of vodka can defeat a tank. So all fuels are being systematically attacked/withdrawn. COSHH regulations played an important part. The electrification of transport is to eliminate petrol. Alcohol is being watered down. Sugar? (Idk, I’m not a chemist.)
I think I would have a slide on mitigation to give an idea about just how big a problem it is.
Just saying we can make electricity out of free sunlight does not give the whole story although that is what appeals to the greenies. I think I calculated once that the US would need about 16,000 Ivanpah-sized facilities to produce all its energy (not just electricity).
That might sound practical but you also need to factor in the lifetime of the plants. Assuming they last for 30+ years, it means you end up having to build them at a rate of more than one a day for ever. They are about six square miles each and are made from lots of concrete, metal and nasty chemicals.
“the US would need about 16,000 Ivanpah-sized facilities”
Not with the rationing the UN has in mind; 1 lightbulb, 1 radio.
And the radio tuned to the UN channel.
Charts needed are those showing so-called extreme weather activity and how such has decreased in the age of Global Weirding instead of increaseing. Also show things like Glacier National Park, and how most of the glacial retreat occurred before 1950 (Such things are conveniently left out of alarmist images, they only show pictures of the last maximum, then now.)
Why do any of you think that Trump needs to be convinced of anything? He is already fully onboard that the whole GW/CC/GCD industry is a sham. Just shut down funding for politicized science, for the IPCC and for Agenda 21, and move on to more important things.
All you have to do is look at what the min and max temperature averages for the last 60 years to see it’s not from co2.
“at Stanford for the Hewlett Foundation. The project focuses on “Setting the Climate Agenda for our Next President”. It is bipartisan in nature” … yes very bipartisan, both liberal and ultra liberal.
Trump answered Hillary in one of the debates, that, “The hoax of Global Warming is thinking that we can do anything about it.” I doubt he will engage at all, except to back out of what Obama has done.
Yep.
2. Is the cost of mitigation today less than that of adaptation the day after tomorrow?
Answer: No. It is 1-3 orders of magnitude costlier to mitigate than to adapt.
The third question would be: What would mitigation help?
Answer: Very little and with minor confidence.
It is still not resolved to a meaningfull level how much CO2 influences the climate, so any mitigation with CO2 reduction is even less known. CO2 mitigation could even trigger a tipping point to an ice age, just to make alarm in the opposite direction.
I am going to go way out on a limb and submit to Lord Monckton the following NASA OCO-2 chart:
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/images/ocov2/news/earth20161101b.jpg
Perhaps the President-elect will ask the question, “What are the natural sources of CO2?” And I think he will get that data for himself.
Now remember Steven Goddard’s articles on WUWT in 2010 when the Iceland volcano erupted, and the press was reporting several orders of magnitude less emissions than there were. What would Donald J Trump say if he found out that a volcanic eruption can emit more ghg and halogens in one week than the entire UK economy produces in a year? I think he will not be impressed by NASA satellites graphing human-caused CO2.
And I also have noticed that the Aleutian Islands and Alaska have been experiencing a lot of earthquake activity. There are swarms of earthquakes of smaller magnitude happening up there (and in CA), and today the swarms are extending along the full length of the island chain.
As far as I can tell, we don’t need any slides – your work is done. Trump has obviously been listening to you and the other great, determined, and PATIENT people. *THANKYOU*
I have corresponded with Anthony about the necessity of a briefing for some people (no particulars given so the climate alarmists do not get ideas). I have a list of the graphs and data to include and somewhat of an order. I have been working 12-16 hours a day for the last two years, and often weekends, so I have had no time to expand it. You can get my email from Anthony and we can exchange ideas….the topic is too long for this post.
La Grenouille du désert.