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.
Lord Monckton. 1) Include something on NOAA and NASA adjustments to the raw data. Especially if it can be verified that the discrepancies between raw and adjusted values match the CO2 record. If they are manipulating the data to manufacture a co2-driven temperature record (to create ‘evidence’ of a co2 ‘control knob’) then they must be held to account. 2) urge a major major counter alarmist punch on the PR front. 3) a major new direction on grant funding. Declare open season on the man-made climate change hypothesis and divert the remainder of funds to other sciences 4) get the federal ‘scientists’ at NASA and NOAA to releaee all methodological records. Seize their computers if need be. Those scientists work for the people of the u.s.a. They have no right to hide behind cynical politicking. Show us the methodology.
” get the federal ‘scientists’ at NASA and NOAA to releaee all methodological records. Seize their computers if need be. Those scientists work for the people of the u.s.a. They have no right to hide behind cynical politicking. Show us the methodology.”
They ALREADY DO..
we won access to that back in 2007
Dear Mr.President-Elect Trump
Climate change got very little attention during the campaign.
It should get no attention during your administration.
”I don’t know” summarizes the current state of climate “science”, but few scientists are willing to admit that, even skeptics.
In America, unfortunately, people who say “I don’t know” are ignored by the media, even if they are correct.
(1)
Climate “science” is not real science:
Bureaucrats claim the future temperature is known with certainty, which is a lie, as they repeatedly change the past temperature raw data with “adjustments” that create more “warming”, which is another lie.
(2)
Predictions of mild warming caused by CO2 are based on an unproven theory from 1896.
The 1896 theory has been grossly distorted by the recent invention of a ‘positive feedback theory’ out of thin air — tripling the mild warming claimed by the 1896 theory.
(3)
The climate computer games have a 40-year record of wrong temperature predictions,
(4)
Claims of what more CO2 in the air will do to our planet are nothing more than wild guess over-the-top speculation,
(5) NASA reports the average temperature in hundredths of a degree C., when the true margin of error is about +/- 0.5 degrees C. — that’s not real science, and
(6) The key problem of climate “science” is the false claim that the future climate can be predicted … a bizarre claim after 40 years of wrong predictions by the climate computer games!
The only prediction likely to be correct:
“The climate will get warmer, or colder”.
Question 1: ”How much global warming will we cause, and by when”
My answer:
No one knows if humans have caused any global warming.
There was slight warming from 1910 to 1940, attributed to natural causes.
There was a similar slight warming from 1975 to 2005, but without proof it was attributed to humans.
More CO2 in the air makes green plants grow faster — that good news is rarely reported.
There is no proof more CO2 in the air caused any of the slight warming since 1850.
But there is scientific evidence of the opposite — natural warming causes more CO2 in the air.
No matter what the cause of the slight warming since 1850, it was good news because prior centuries were too cold.
The good news from the climate change since 1850 strongly suggests more warming and more CO2 in the air would be even better news.
Don’t listen to liberals — they are scaremongers with ulterior motives — they scare people to control them.
Question 2: ”Is the cost of mitigation today less than that of adaptation the day after tomorrow?”
My answer:
No one knows how to stop climate change, because no one knows what causes climate change.
The mild climate change since 1850 has been good news, so trying to stop the current trend would make no sense, even if we knew how.
Don’t listen to liberals — they are scaremongers with ulterior motives — they scare people to control them.
Free climate blog for non-scientists
No ads.
No money for me.
A public service.
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
+10
Bingo !!
You probably don’t need to convince mr. Trump.
The real problem is to convince people all over the world as they are year in, year out brainwashed by MSM and Wikipedia. Most likely the only thing which could help to achieve this is much colder weather in the year’s ahead.
Day #1
EPA issues the following statement: CO2 is NOT a pollutant.
What would be fun: Ask some AGWer if they believe some anonymous modeler saying CO2 is a pollutant.
slides to include in briefing:
1) THEORY – clearly and concisely show the effect of saturating the IR sensitivity. This is something very difficult for non-scientists to get, but I find it helps to talk about blankets: a 99% black blanket stops 99% of the light….do two blankets over your head block 198% of the light? etc etc. CO2 at pre-industrial levels was already well over the e-folding for saturation by several multiples, further CO2 has logarithmic response. This is not contested by scientists who really understand (hence talk about degrees per doubling, etc). Very important, usually overlooked.
2) LONG TERM HISTORY – very simple, show the phase lag between CO2 and temp in the Vostok ice cores.
3) SHORT TERM HISTORY – show the temp records before adjustments, with error bars. Compare to CO2 meas.
4) ICE – show the sinusoidal ice coverage plots for arctic – give a feeling for what the year to year variation is over time (since 70s) compared to the seasonal variation. show antarctic growth.
5) SEA LEVEL – show long time measurements of sea level, lack of acceleration. show both present rate of rise and even worst case projected rate of rise, and compare to daily tidal variations.
6) CO2 benefits – show increased growth measurements over time for old-growth forests, compare to CO2 and temp. show how more CO2 (& hence faster growth rate) moves zones for agriculture further north. estimate benefits to food production worldwide.
7) STORMS — show statistics….these have been presented on these pages many times.
Jeff Has the idea. Start with paleoclimate and work forward, then effects of CO2 and other contributions, etc. I put together 27 pdf’s with a pretty picture each as an example. I have even offered to pay $1000 for a graphic artist to make everything pretty. When the top is explained in simple elegant form it is easy to understand….even for democrats.
So, both parties made ridiculous economic promises during the campaign – bring jobs back, good wages, yadda yadda yadda.
But it dawned on me after the election – if Trump gets government out of the way of the energy sector, stops the global warming swindle, removes the wasteful subsidies of solar, wind, and electric cars, he’s going to get his miraculous 5% growth.
Cheap, reliable energy drives growth. Throw that on a slide.
So annual 1.5 trillion for the great global warming swindle: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/08/climate-change-the-hoax-that-costs-us-4-billion-a-day/
US GDP 2016 about 18 trillion.
Back of the napkin 8.3% we can apply to wealth creation rather than wealth destruction.