Friday Funny: Liberals are in such disbelief/shock on Myron Ebell appointment for EPA transition, he has a Snopes page

This is hilarious. Over the past couple of days on Twitter and Facebook, I’ve seen dozens, perhaps even hundreds of meltdown tweets like this:


There’s some others far worse that are in full meltdown mode:


It even made Scientific American, who even seemed incredulous as they wrote the article:


There is so much incredulity, that Snopes had to make a page saying that it was in fact true. Screencap follows:


In September 2016, candidate Donald Trump announced his intention to appoint Myron Ebell to lead his administration’s transition team at the Environmental Protection Agency. Ebell currently serves as the director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the libertarian think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He also chairs an initiative named the Cooler Heads Coalition, which, according to Ebell’s official bio:

…comprises over two dozen non-profit groups in this country and abroad that question global warming alarmism and oppose energy rationing policies.

Ebell openly declares himself to be a climate change skeptic who disputes the severity of human activity on Earth’s climate. On this point, Ebell has been extremely consistent: He argues that anthropogenic global warming, if it happens at all, is a minor issue that has been usurped by liberals to expand the federal government. He has stated in many different venues that he intends to dismantle the scientific consensus around anthropogenic global warming, as discussed in this October 23 2012 interview with PBS Frontline’s John Hockenberry:

EBELL: […] What we’re fighting is the expansion of government. And there are many pretexts for expanding government.

HOCKENBERRY: Opposing government action on climate change to defend American freedom is a perfect fit.

EBELL: We felt that if you concede the science is settled and that there’s a consensus, you cannot— the moral high ground has been ceded to the alarmists.

HOCKENBERRY: So you had to go to work and break down this consensus.

EBELL: Yes. And we did it because we believed that the consensus was phony. We believed that the so-called global warming consensus was not based on science, but was a political consensus, which included a number of scientists.

More here:

We live in interesting times.

366 thoughts on “Friday Funny: Liberals are in such disbelief/shock on Myron Ebell appointment for EPA transition, he has a Snopes page

  1. My strong and sincere congratulations to Myron Ebell as well as to President-Elect Trump for the choice. He is an excellent pick for the position.

    • He argues that anthropogenic global warming, if it happens at all, is a minor issue that has been usurped by liberals to expand the federal government.

      No, it hasn’t. Everyone needs to get off this insular, circular argument (and the idiotic misuse of the word ‘socialism’) and see what’s happening with clear eyes.
      It’s been usurped by multinationals (read: their global owners/investors and shareholders, while we’re busy arguing over bathroom signage at home) who want to act outside the purview of our federal government.
      That’s why they rushed to enact the necessary global legal structure ASAP after their failure at Copenhagen 2009 to establish “Global Governance.” The young David de Rothschild articulated on TV at the time that Global Governance was the purpose of Copenhagen 2009. If they couldn’t get the whole umbrella passed in 2009, at least they had to set up the legal spokes by the time Obama left office.
      The legal structures of ‘Global Governance’—to be adopted by the UN as binding treaties—are:
      (1) The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
      (2) The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) [UNFCCC’s baby]
      (3) The Trade In Services Agreement (TISA)
      These three agreements will provide the legal framework for NGOs and multinationals (aka, transnational companies and international banks) to act with impunity across all borders without jurisdictional control, and if passed, these agreements give NGOs and those acting in concert with multinationals/international banks the right to change the laws of this country without any interference from the US Supreme Court, or the people of the USA. Treaties trump local laws in this country; remember that! Treaties are laws enacted by the country as a whole, and therefore hold a federal and legal status above the rights of individual citizens.
      This legal framework is spelled out in the 3rd agreement/treaty, TISA—Wikileaks or some group leaked this part of it—currently being negotiated in secret in Geneva by the US Trade Representative, Michael Froman, who was Obama’s Special Assistant in charge of passing the failed Copenhagen 2009.
      Any Congressman (Representative or Senator) who demands to see the TISA today has to meet Michael Froman in a guarded room in DC (when he deigns to return to the US) without a phone, camera, and or the ability to take notes, for a total of 45 minutes only.
      And since we agreed in Citizens United–effing stupid US Supreme Court–to grant corporations ‘personhood’, and once we agree to the three treaties above, these multinationals can stand at the US Treasury/Federal Reserve’s door—not Congress’s door where they would encounter sunlight—with their hand out for interest-free US dollars, endless amounts of it. Trillions.
      Using the excuse of saving us from the ravages of CO2 because our population has been primed to be none the wiser.
      Why else do you think Maurice Strong and young David de Rothschild’s Swiss uncle (Baron Edmond) dreamt up Global Warming in 1984/5 with David Rockefeller?

      • I agree, MRW . . this is more appropriate lingo, it seems to me;
        *He argues that anthropogenic global warming, if it happens at all, is a minor issue that has been usurped by illiberals to expand the federal government.*
        I want that word back too . .

      • Mostly very much on point. There’s a bit of historical drift that you should take into consideration because it adds temporal perspective that is, well, disturbing. The “personhood” decision was made in a SC decision in late 19th century – or possibly the very early 20th, but definitely before WWI and IIRC, before the Spanish American War. CU reaffirmed that piece of stupidity and expanded it. The decision essentially asserts that “corporate entities” also have a right to “free speech.” Since this was in response to complaints about political spending by superPACs, funded by multinationals, it added new meaning to the term “money talks.” It is also highly worth remembering that CU is or was a “conservative” organization that sued the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Also worth noting is that the “target” of the expenditures prohibited by the FEC was Hillary Clinton. The SC held that the earlier decision which acknowledged “personhood” to corporate entities extended the right of “free speech” to corporations and labor unions.

        • Duster, you have bought into a Democratic Party theme of some antiquity, one pressed by that outstanding Democrat, “Pitchfork Ben” Tillman, also known for the KKK and gun control. So, if I and my fellow deplorables in the NRA use money collected in relatively small amounts to lobby and run ads against Hillary Clinton, we have fewer rights as a group than we do individually? Citizens United did not quite go far enough, as McCain-Feingold should have also been declared unconsitutional, and all the self-dealing incumbent protection laws passed after Watergate.

      • Are you under illusion that (State) ‘socialism’ is helping people, hence you blame the multinationals ?
        Let’s have a look at who the mass murderers were in the 20th Century and see if we can spot anything in common ?
        National Socialism
        Soviet Socialism
        Maoist Socialism
        North Korean Socialism
        North Vietnamese Socialism
        East German Socialism
        Ba’athist Socialism
        Khmer Rouge Socialism
        Cuban Socialism
        Angolan Socialism
        African National Congress Socialism
        Ethiopian Socialism
        Venezuelan Socialism
        Columbian FARC socialism
        etc etc etc
        Did you spot what they had in common ? because SOCIALISM is about STATE POWER and NOT about helping people (that is called ‘charity’, and is voluntary). This is why socialists killed 100 million of their own people in peacetime.
        State Socialism is not about helping people, it is about State Power, and ‘State Power’ actually means rule by the elites who use State Force and State coercion against people with less political power/resources.
        Since governments have no power nor money except that which they take from the citizens involuntarily with the threat of force, socialism is simply this idea taken further – ROBBING the citizens and depriving them of Individual Liberty (which is the only way the State/elites gain POWER).
        Socialism is involuntary which makes it IMMORAL. Charity is voluntary which makes it MORAL (as well as being more efficient that Socialism, since 60% of the donations don’t go to propping up a bureaucracy that serves to tell citizens what to do and collect the wealth taken at gunpoint by the government elites).
        If you still do not understand the difference between involuntary socialism and voluntary charity then perhaps you might understand it in terms of rape versus romance. It is the same physical act, but the fact that one is involuntary is what makes rape and economic rape (‘socialism’) IMMORAL, and the people who force it on others EVIL.
        Of course you attack the multinationals. They are not blameless, but they are the designated scapegoat so that the governments (which are abstract, the ‘elites’ are real and are control freak humans) can get off scot free.
        Do you not understand that if the government is reduced in power then the multinational cannot use government power either.
        If you attack the multinationals without limiting government power then government power grows (which the elites and bureaucracies actually want).
        If you limit government power then both multinationals AND government stop interfering with the Individual Liberty of Free People.
        Unfortunately so many Europeans do not understand this. Fortunately, approximately half of all Americans do.
        Governments (which actually means ‘the people that run them’) only gain power and wealth by taking the earnings and liberty of citizens – using the threat of State Force.
        DO NOT DEFEND INVOLUNTARY COLLECTIVISM NO MATTER WHAT IT CALLS ITSELF. International Socialism is immoral. National Socialism is immoral. Religious Socialism is immoral. Progressivism is immoral. Modern ‘Liberalism’ is immoral.
        There must be Limited Government in order for citizens to have Individual Liberty. There is no other way.

      • MRW , thank you for that comment, you have provided us with the sunlight and I hope Trump understands . What you describe is clearly a scary situation. It’s no wonder Trump has been vilified ( and still is) by the elitists, the academia and the MSM. From what I have seen so far he seems to be surrounding himself with very capable people and I sincerely hope the American people give him all the support he so clearly deserves.

      • Moa,

        Are you under illusion that (State) ‘socialism’ is helping people, hence you blame the multinationals ?


      • Thanks, Duster,
        Didn’t know those extra historical points. Haven’t looked back that far. I’m at the point, however, where I’m digging into why ‘public corporations’ were originally created.
        I was surprised to find that the notion that a corporation’s first duty is to its shareholders did not take hold until 1978, when deregulation first started.
        William Lazonick, president of the Academic-Industry Research Network, and a leading expert on the business corporation, described the history in a report I read. Apparently,

        Historically, corporations were understood to be responsible to a complex web of constituencies, including employees, communities, society at large, suppliers, and shareholders.

        They were granted certain rights as public companies because they also had certain public responsibilities to fulfill to receive those rights. (Too long for here.) It was neither American law nor tradition that shareholder profits came first, quite the opposite, but even such Democratic stalwarts as the junior senator from Minnesota, Al Franken, seem to think so. Must have been what was going around on the set of Saturday Night Live during the 70s.
        Owen D. Young, twice chairman of General Electric (1922-40, 1942-45) and 1930 TIME Magazine’s Man of the Year, told an audience at Harvard Business School in 1927 that the purpose of a corporation was to provide a good life in both material and cultural terms not only to its owners but also to its employees, and thereby to serve the larger goals of the nation:

        “Here in America, we have raised the standard of political equality. Shall we be able to add to that, full equality in economic opportunity? No man is wholly free until he is both politically and economically free. No man with an uneconomic and failing business is free. He is unable to meet his obligations to his family, to society, and to himself. No man with an inadequate wage is free. He is unable to meet his obligations to his family, to society, and to himself. No man is free who can provide only for physical needs. He must also be in a position to take advantage of cultural opportunities. Business, as the process of coordinating men’s capital and effort in all fields of activity, will not have accomplished its full service until it shall have provided the opportunity for all men to be economically free.”

        Again, thank you.

      • MRW
        That is an interesting take on things, indeed, and I would appreciate following up on this off line. I might be able to add dimension. Our hosts has our particulars.
        Note to moderator: could you pls facilitate comms. Thx.

      • Sorry but that’s about as conspiracy theory nutty as the fake Moon landings. Governments can only be sued under the trade treaties in courts, and damages have to be shown as with any other case under any other law or treaty. What exactly do you think happens if any such case comes to court? That an NGO or a company just says the government has to give me money?
        If a government usurps private property, the owner of that private property should be able to use the law to get redress. I am amazed that people on this site think that’s a bad thing.

      • Go! citizens United now 2 people can get together and have the same free right of speech as an individual. without citizens united george soros could run as many tv ads as he feels about any subject he feels but if 2 people need to get together to buy a billboard for or against any political policy they could be banned by law. A Corporation by law is 2 or more people who get together for a common purpose. The government wanted to be able to regulate their right to free speech. Why are you so afraid of free speech?

    • Moa,
      I was walking around thinking about your comment for a while.

      SOCIALISM is about STATE POWER and NOT about helping people (that is called ‘charity’, and is voluntary).

      Places like the city-state of Singapore are a glaring exception to that. Singapore has got to be the most pro-business place I have ever been to. Grant you, a semi-dictator ran it for 31 years. He instituted death to drug-users, no exceptions, and I think gum-chewers as well (don’t hold me to the last). Prime Minister Lee, who died 18 months ago, took a sleepy backwater Asian swamp, newly released from British colonial power and anticipated to fail, and turned it into a worldwide business powerhouse. The NYT described it last year as “The nation reflected the man: efficient, unsentimental, incorrupt, inventive, forward-looking and pragmatic.”
      Singapore is clean as a whistle. Go-go-go 24/7. Rich. Vibrant. Culturally sophisticated. Takes care of all its people. Since it’s tropical, they have strict environmental rules. They have the best airport in the world, imo. I could move in and never leave. I happen to be extremely partial to Lee’s pragmatism:

      “We are ideology-free. Does it work? If it works, let’s try it. If it’s fine, let’s continue it. If it doesn’t work, toss it out, try another one.”

      That’s Singapore. But they do something we would regard as unthinkable since 1980 because we falsely associate it with a backward verkakte medieval eastern European idea of “socialism” that has no relationship to the modern world. That’s why I was biotching.
      The govt of Singapore invests in its country’s industries as shareholders. Some new industries get 90%. Others 1-10%. Then they put govt officials on the company’s Board of Directors. Singapore is ruled by British law, and God help you if you break the law there. God help you, in addition to your family being disgraced and shunned for generations.
      But here’s what they do with that investment and corporate board presence. It’s a dynamic relationship. Because they are so legally rimrod, if there’s a law on the books preventing the company from achieving such-and-such, they can call up their govt board member(s) and say we need this law changed, it’s hampering us from doing X and earning $Y, and their govt guys will go into Parliament the next day and git ‘er done by noon. The only entities that have that power in the US Congress now are the Israel and gun lobbies, with the gun lobby being a distant second. (A foreign govt should never benefit from the power of the US federal government before American citizens do, no matter how much you swoon over that foreign govt’s existence. Or you ain’t a patriot, and you ain’t American.)
      All Americans should think about that model. We are, after all, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Why can’t it work for us? Why can’t we assume it works for us as the Constitution says it should? If we’re running the show for our own prosperity, why not? Make the civil servants work for us. That’s what they’re there for. And frankly, isn’t that what we want? I don’t give a damn what they call it. Git ‘er done.

      • Singapore one of the most boring dull places on earth where you cant do anything. very much like Australia these days.

      • Eliza, wasn’t when I went there 10 years ago. But then, I was shepherded around by locals. I had a great time. Then I went to Melbourne. Loved it as well. I love you ‘strines’.

      • MRW – Perhaps you have summarized Singapore’s history too much. Singapore, a well developed trading power, obtained ‘self-governing’ status in June 1959, and became independent in August 1963. It voluntarily merged with Malaysia a fortnight later, in September 1963. However, disputes with the central government in Kuala Lumpur increased to such an extent that Singapore was expelled from Malaysia in August 1965. The Malaysian Parliament expelled Singapore by 126 votes to nil, there being no Singaporean members present. By then, Singapore had not been a “sleepy backwater Asian swamp” for nearly 100 years.

      • In the early nineties I attended a conference in Singapore at which then retired former PM Lee Kuan Yu was guest speaker
        His message was direct and simple
        “Dont keep China out of the world community. Encourage them to come in join and play by the rules”
        Mr Lee of chinese background was certainly no communist fellow traveller
        In the early days of his country he had to fight off attempted takeovers by Singapore communists
        His words still need to be heeded but getting them to play by the rules might be not so easy

      • I think it’s a convenient canard to claim the superiority of Singapore based on some supposed pro-business environment they have. In the end, it’s about freedom under the rule of law. Your description of Singapore sounds like they forgot the “freedom” part of that.
        Furthermore, you are woefully misinformed if you think that the gun lobbies are anywhere near the top of the list in terms of influence in Washington. In fact, it’s so far off, it borders on ludicrous. I have no idea about this mythical “Israel” lobby, so can’t comment on it, but perhaps you would be served by questioning your own beliefs and seeking contradictory evidence instead. Or not. You do you.

  2. In 2009 a politician said: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”
    That holds true today.

  3. I love it! As you know Snopes is supposedly a hoax busting site so I thought I’d test it out with global warming. Surprise surprise, being liberals, Snopes is fully in the global warming tank. They banned me from their Facebook page. It’s been tough – but I’ll survive.

    • You ought to ask Snopes to confirm the rumor that you’ve been been banned from their Facebook page, or state that it is a hoax. 🙂

    • I’ve also been banned from a fb site- IFLS. It seems they took objection to my posting the link to the top 100 science blogs as a reply to everyone who was fed-up with their anti-Trump climate screed and said they were leaving for good. I was just being helpful, assisting them in finding some replacement science sites, and noting that IFLS didn’t make the cut. Or it could have been linking to the geocraft greenhouse calculations page showing how little water vapor swamps human-released co2. Ah well, there are plenty more pseudoscience sites where they came from.

      • Breitbart bans people who post who accept the science of climate change… seems they don’t want any contrary evidence…

        • No they do not. Just ask all the alarmists posting there. They are tiring in their one trick pony, but unless they violate the TOU, they are free to keep beating the dead horse.

      • Griff, if you’ve managed to get yourself banned by Breitbart then I’m impressed, but it almost certainly wan nothing to do with your opinions about global warming.

      • Griff,
        What you’re saying is nonsense. I’ve had several arguments with people on Breitbart – and read other back-and-forth arguments as well. I must say between you and some other people on this same thread (e.g. Maurice Strong did not dream up global warming in 1984/5 – Wigley and Jones were on about it in the early 80s – I’ve got some of their papers), one would almost give up hope regarding people’s ability to maintain any kind of genuine veracity. It doesn’t seem to be in the genes.

    • That would actually be a good idea. In my job, I am a “user” of government legislation and policies – there are so many inconsistencies, competing agendas, ambiguities and contradictions, it is almost impossible to navigate the system in my state now. Sometimes you read policies and legislation and you just shake your head imagining the idiots who wrote it. Often times, the government agencies don’t even understand their own laws and policies and our lawyers give us completely different (and legally sound) advice from the bureaucrats’ current interpretation and practice of their own policies and laws, which they seem to apply haphazardly anyway.

  4. Gasp!
    How can the deplorables outside of Panem revolt like this?
    “Pen and Phone” with no compromise!
    ….Citizens of Panem must read Bills before they are passed!

  5. I don’t have the direct citation but apparently Ebell is very adamant about tough enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, as they are written. Seems like the green blob should be overjoyed that someone will be looking at actual sources of emissions and pollution that violate those directives, rather than chasing after a politically popular non-issue.

    • The left is interested in virtual pollution not real pollution.
      The left isn’t very competent (at anything practical) so they like to solve non-problems since there is no way to fail and they can always claim success.

      • That’s what happens when a generation is raised with no discipline, no consequences and everyone gets a trophy.

    • Yeah, i used to visit “cooler heads” years ago and found them to be a fairly rational bunch. (it ain’t like he picked anthony to lead his transition team… ☺)

    • So you must assume Ebell will undo the EPA’s declaration (and ratified by SCOTUS) that CO2 is a “dangerous pollutant”, thereby lumping CO2 in with all the actual dangerous pollutants. As it stands, the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts applies to CO2, so Ebell is in something of a quandary if your citation is accurate.

      • “I have reviewed the issue and find no evidence CO2 causes any direct harm, therefore, as head of the EPA ,I have directed the department to remove it from the list of pollutants.”
        Problem solved.

      • Felflames,
        The ***BEST*** strategy is to have Congress amend the Clean Air Act and Trump to sign it into law, that is, statutory language mandating that CO2 and water vapor are not pollutants covered under the Act. That would prevent mischief from future Democrat Presidents.
        And Blow up the Filibuster completely if Senate Democrats balk.

      • Transition team members are in charge of administration transition, a task that ends upon inauguration. There is no reason to assume that Ebell will remain in the Trump administration as a nominee for any position. That remains to be seen.

    • very adamant about tough enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, as they are written.

      Good. And while he’s at it, he can rain down on pipeline manufacturers, regulators, and the secure protection of pipelines from advocacy saboteurs. Europe’s maze of pipelines is far FAR more complicated and pervasive than ours are, and yet you never hear about those pipelines bursting in sensitive urban areas, or destroying environmental sanctuaries. Again, another infrastructure issue that has not been tended to by the federal government.

    • The EPA did most of its important jobs years ago and some really were important and needed doing. At present though, without a BIG issue it would be reduced to a basic enforcement and watchdog agency. As long no rivers caught fire, they would be a federal backwater. By redirecting attention to something as nebulous as CO2, the EPA continues to get a budget, doesn’t seriously step on ANY corporate toes, and (mostly) keeps the generic enviros happy. Little business? Well life might be harder for little guys, but anyone with money can afford the EPA decisions /sarc.
      Controlling climate is a monumentally daunting task, and without even a sound theory of how it really works, lots of hand waving and black-guarding CO2 gives people something to “worry” about and politicians of all stripes an issue to hold forth on. Politicians on both sides of the aisle can yell and scream about whether CO2 needs to be controlled or not and both sides of the aisle appear to be doing the jobs that they were elected to do.

      • Former EPA head, Lisa Jackson spoke at the 2009 “Power Shift” Rally (an Al Gore offshoot) and was introduced as “one of us” and a “scientist bringing back science to the EPA”. She paid homage to the Power Shift movement, saying that she was excited by its impact in bringing about social change:

        “African Americans and women got the vote because of a power shift. We have the first African American head of the EPA and the first African American President; we have changed the face of environmentalism.
        We have a $10.5 billion budget, the largest in EPA history, that’s a power shift, EPA is back on the job. (cheers, yelling).
        Science has been resurrected and will guide our actions.”
        “Lisa P Jackson, EPA Administrator – Fulfilling the UN Mission”
        The new Administrator also promised the (2009) crowd, that she would seek to overturn the Bush administration “midnight regulations”. The most critical of these to the environmental lobby was the memorandum by outgoing EPA chief Stephen Johnson, which stated that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant to be regulated and officials assessing applications by utilities to build new coal-fired power plants could not consider their greenhouse gas output when approving power plants.
        Jackson also revealed the administration’s pre-determined policy on CO2, when she said that:
        “Our first steps on taking office were to resume the CO2 endangerment finding and to seek fuel efficiency standards to reduce carbon pollution. The Law says Greenhouse Gases are pollution.”
        An analysis of the Endangerment Finding, showing the paucity of scientific input, how much of it was produced by IPCC authors working for the EPA, and the financial involvement of the EPA with IPCC, can be found here in the SPPI paper, “United (Nations) States Environmental Protection Agency”.
        “It has in fact, a major stake in the IPCC process, as former EPA officials, (non-scientists), have been heavily involved in the IPCC reports, with funding from the EPA. Those former employees are also consultants to EPA and have major input to their regulatory findings, including the endangerment finding.
        The input of the EPA into the IPCC reports is demonstrated by the fact that they provide funding for one of the core climate models, MAGICC/SCENGEN
        The EPA authors of the Endangerment Technical Support Document are mainly economists and environmental policy specialists, with qualifications like Masters in International Affairs or Public Policy and Management, although there are a couple of chemists, engineers and one meteorologist. Some are also IPCC authors and many are involved in the production of the proposed regulations.”
        Reviewers of the Endangerment Finding Technical Support Document included Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s NCDC. Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA, and Susan Solomon, now at MIT:

    • where is the empirical evidence
      an interesting paper that deserves wider attention. clearly if there is no significant correlation between CO2 and fossil fuels, it cannot be fossil fuels that are driving CO2, irrespective of isotope ratio’s or other supporting evidence.
      it would be interesting if someone like Willis could do a review of the paper on WUWT. From my quick review, if the math holds, it would appear to be a significant finding.

    • @chaamjamal.
      I have been asking that self same question for years on various alarmist sites and am yet to get an answer.
      There is no conclusive, empirical evidence whatsoever that CO2 causes Temperature rise. The green morons are/were (!) basing our futures, and theirs, on a shoddy, unproven theory.
      The evil empire in the US will be eradicated. Now all we need to do is get the green nutters out of Europe as well!!!

    • The empirical evidence is in the long-term trend that you removed for no good reason from in your presumably-unpublished paper(s).
      You do need to know some physics. Temperature is proportional to energy and heat capacity is the proportionality constant. Radiation is power – energy per unit time. For temperature to change, the power needs to be on for a significant period of time. If I turn my 100 W space heater on for one minute, will the thermometer on the other side detect a rise in temperature? No. If you look at the temperature change over the next minute, you won’t detect a change either. If you look at the temperature change over 1 hour, the temperature will be higher. Analyzing temperature data minute by minute prevents you from demonstrating that a heater warms your room – if you ignore the long term trend.
      If I turn on my 100 W heater outside (larger heat capacity) for one year, will the local temperature rise? Of course not. The power output, the time and heat capacity are important.
      Radiative forcing – the effect of CO2 on the rate heat escapes the Earth to space – is measured in W/m2. If you multiply this by the effective heat capacity of the Earth per m2 (which is mostly the depth of the mixed layer of the ocean), you will obtain a warming rate which is approximately 0.2 K/yr for a forcing of 1 W/m2. The increase in radiative forcing in the average year has been about 0.04 W/m2 or a little more than 2 W/m2 in the past half-century. That means we expect to see a warming of 0.008K from the change in radiative forcing in one year. It is no wonder you can’t find it in annual data. It can only be found in the long-term trend that you have discarded.
      Since the response to radiative forcing doesn’t reach equilibrium in a single year, a proper analysis of the problem is far more complicated. As the earth warms, it emits more infrared radiation and negates some of the radiative forcing that caused the warming. However, warming is slow, so the planet has not fully responded to build up of radiative forcing over the last several years. Based on the rate at which the ocean is warming, we think we have seen about 75% of the forcing that has accumulated over a half-century converted to warming.
      The other complication is that the temperature in any one location changes 10 degC in the average day and the average daily temperature changes about 10 degC between winter and summer. When you sum up all of those changes, temperature data is noisy. Many other factors – especially clouds cover – effect incoming an outgoing radiation. That is why the temperature data you see is so noisy, while the thermometer in a room with a heater will be stable from minute to minute. If I used a very sensitive thermometer, changes in air currents from the heater and the colder windows might cause the temperature to change by 0.01 degC warmer or cooler in one minute – analogous to the noise you see in your detrended plot.

      • Frank: you are mixing observations with modeling/hypothesis to make your case.
        You have to pick one.
        Hypothesis > observations,
        observations > hypothesis/model.
        If regarded this way, something becomes very apparent:
        there is a problem with the modeling:
        the question is whether higher levels of CO2 cause heat to be retained in the atmosphere, raising planetary temps.
        We (supposedly) can measure planetary temp, and can measure atmospheric CO2.
        Now, we could substitute the main hypothesis with a very similar mathematical question:
        does msmt of CO2 covary with msmt of planetary temp?
        Here we run into a problem.
        Covary means that when one mathematical value goes up, another goes up (or down), as well. “Covary” = they vary together.
        For two measures to vary together, each musy vary.
        CO2 does not vary. It is monotonic.
        While the FIRST question [“whether higher levels of CO2 cause heat to be retained in the atmosphere, raising planetary temps”] MAY be true, this cannot be determined by our mathematical process of assessing whether two measures covary.
        For the reliable data available, CO2 is a constant.

      • Cogent analysis, Frank. Now flood your room a couple feet deep, cycle the heaters and open all the windows and punch holes in the roof and see what you get. Only recommended if you rent.

    • Jamal,
      That paper is most likely nonsense since if it were correct then it would be the most amazing coincidence
      that in the last 50 years mankind has massively increased the amount of CO2 that it produces and the amount
      of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by a comparable amount due to some other completely unknown source.
      Plus it raises the question if the CO2 produced by human activity has not ended up in the atmosphere where is it? So for it to be correct there needs to be two completely new physical processes that no-one knows about. Alternatively there could be an error in the paper (like the fact that the detrending process removes the trend you are looking for) and in fact the rise in atmospheric CO2 is caused by human emissions.
      And if this work were to be taken seriously it would need to be submitted to a scientific peer reviewed journal
      rather than posted an a social science archive website.

      • You say it would be the most amazing coincidence. But really it wouldn’t be that much of a coincidence at all.
        Temperature has been rising and falling by similar amounts and at similar rates since before roman times. Roughly speaking over given 20 year period the temperature seems to rise or fall or stay constant with roughly an equal chance for each outcome. So if we look at the 20 year period from the 1970s to the 1990s when CO2 was rising there is going to be a 33% chance that temperature will be rising to match just by pure chance. I wouldn’t call those odds “most amazing”.

      • Consider this: the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of a chemical equilibrium between the atmosphere, the land biosphere, and the oceans. If it changes, it is only because the equilibrium conditions (pressure, temperature) are changing. And if that is so…it literally doesn’t matter what humankind does with regard to CO2 production, because Le Chatlier’s Principle will always drive the system kinematics to restore the equilibrium. If shut down all hydrocarbon combustion, more CO2 would just emerge from seawater to meet the trending shift in equilibrium. How could it be otherwise? Is anyone going to argue that equilibrium chemistry is NOT governed by Le Chatlier’s Principle? (i.e., that systems do NOT want to remain in equilibrium?)

      • Michael,
        the lifetime for CO2 in the atmosphere is about 1000 years. Hence while Le Chatlier’s
        principle is correct it doesn’t apply to non equilibrium conditions. And again you have replaced
        a physically plausible explaination for a magical one. What is a “trending shift in equilibrium”
        and what is it’s cause? You need to make a scientific case for that which is more plausible
        than “rising human emissions of CO2 are causing increasing concentrations in the atmosphere”

      • Dear Geronimo,
        After analyzing the carbon-14 decay history from the period of atmospheric nuclear testing, it is very evident that the lifetime is short. It is removed at rates fast enough to show up as an annual variation presumably linked to the photosynthesis patterns of north hemisphere vegetation. According to what you are saying, there could never be a transient negative trend on time scales we could observe.
        I guess you are forced to deny that chemical concentrations have equilibria, and that LeChatlier’s Principle is ineffective. Nothing magical about it. The real question is what is affecting the equilibrium. A warming ocean would explain it all (carbon dioxide outgassing).

  6. Mr Ebell also has a brilliant write up on desmogblog
    My favorite comment is from :
    ‘Business Insider’s Green Sheet named him third in its list of the Ten Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics, after Professor Freeman Dyson and Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, and commented, “Myron Ebell may be enemy #1 to the current climate change community.’
    I such illustrious company he is the perfect candidate.

    • Ten Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics, after Professor Freeman Dyson and Dr. Bjorn Lomborg

      In that case, ‘the current climate change community’ is an enemy of sanity.

    • @phaedo
      Hopefully desmog blog will be amongst the first in the crosshairs of the Trump administration.
      A disgusting, odious, evil site. And I would say that if something like that were ever posted by sceptics as well.

      • To HotScot: I’ve no problem with someone stating their opinion. I have a problem with them hijacking my email and not allowing ‘unsubscribe!’

      • HotScot November 11, 2016 at 11:46 am

        Hopefully desmog blog will be amongst the first in the crosshairs of the Trump administration.
        A disgusting, odious, evil site. And I would say that if something like that were ever posted by sceptics as well.

        I don’t think you’ve thought this through. As someone who is mentioned no less than 27 times on desmogblog, I agree with your assessment of the site.
        However, the idea that the government should attack it is also “digusting, odious, and evil”. That kind of government censorship is anathema in a free society. Next thing you know the pseudo-greens will be back in power with their followers looking to shut down websites …
        The government having desmogblog in its sights is a Very Bad Idea™ …

    • Curry over at GISS would be fun, just to watch the meltdowns.
      Bonus Points: Any lefty protests, we just scream at them Sexist, Misogynist!
      Watch the heads explode.

      • One wonders if the leftist exploding heads could be put to better use (better than the already-excellent entertainment value) as the energy/motive source for a sort-of-Orion spaceship ?

  7. Ebell is a perfect choice – he will bring back sanity in environmental matters. Everybody benefits from living in a clean environment and breathing clean air. The Obama administration has been fighting a hypothetical war against our ‘climate’, Don Quichote tried doing similar things, the only difference being that he was fighting wind mills while Obama is building them. No wonder our people have chosen to replace a defunct political class focussing to prevent imaginary catastrophes, rather than paying attention to the daily issues the world is struggling with.

  8. I see an opportunity for a two-fer….
    Tell the global warming alarmists we can no long afford to finance them…
    …because we have too many illegals to support
    Bang….both problems solved and we didn’t have to spend a penny

    • Nice line, but I ain’t for giving these dirt-bags any latitude myself. (Illegals have mitigation, climate corruptionists have none.) Watching them fall will be the culmination of a 25 years plus battle. It will be magnificent.

  9. The Liberals are in for many, many shocks in the next 4 weeks as Trump’s appointments are announced, and not just climate relevant positions.
    Liberals have been so dishonest for so long that they bought into their own dishonest GroupThink propaganda. Now the coming shocks to their belief system are going to be brutal.

      • ” I need an ambulance … ! ” LOL
        Now, it’s not kind to laugh at grief of others, I’m sure they’ll all get better. Give ’em a hug and kleenex and talk about working together about real environment issues that we all share, even The Donald. 😉

      • I remember I also cried when I found out that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny weren’t real. Except that I was probably about 6 years old.

      • I feel compassion for these folks. On the other hand I remember that a lot of these people are social justice warriors who don’t hesitate to try to ruin the careers of those who disagree with them. Fortunately, some folks fight back.

      • These buttercups should be drafted into the Marine Corp and taught how life can really be a challenge. Then they should do a tour in Iraq w/o boots since the president says no boots on the ground. Maybe sandals?

      • Discovered that clip yesterday, played it several times, never gets old. Election night I went to YouTube and played 6 encores of “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead”.

      • This is funny but a little sad too. I have two daughters.
        The cult of CAGW and some liberal political parties have taken advantage of caring, trusting people. There is nothing wrong with woman or men who want to make the world a better place. There is nothing wrong with strong emotions.
        Propaganda concerning ‘climate change’ has hurt this country and other countries.
        The US has real problems that need to be addressed. The US and other countries do not have trillions of dollars to waste on to fight CAGW which is not a problem.

      • Catcracking November 11, 2016 at 11:25 am
        These buttercups should be drafted into the Marine Corp and taught how life can really be a challenge.

        Boot camp isn’t required. They should just grow up.
        I remember reading about a court case in which a woman was charged with a relatively minor crime. Her excuse was that she had been victimized by circumstances.
        The judge told her to grow some intestinal fortitude and learn to deal with the kind of crap that most people deal with on a daily basis.

      • Obama’s comments are priceless and go directly into the “things Obama has said that aren’t exactly truthful” bin. LOL

  10. ‘Sign this petition to prevent Myron Ebell, a climate denier, from heading the EPA transition’
    A mere petition will stop Trump (!). How many signatures will it take? 50? A thousand? 600,000? Can dead people sign?

      • The petition goes to the White House, to be addressed by the president. By the time Trump can address it, the only answer can be “Too late!”.

      • the petition will go to be adressed by a lame duck who can only say: sorry not my job.
        These bed-wetters are so dumb.

    • Wait, missed this:
      Gamecock November 11, 2016 at 10:05 am
      Can dead people sign?

      Only the ones who voted, ’cause only those that voted have exercised their right to complain.

    • Let’s see a billion signatures from China, another billion from India and more from elsewhere ought make quite a bonfire for Trumps Inauguration.

  11. Wow, the sky really is falling…onto the left! It’s worse than they thought, the end of their world is coming soon!
    One can only applaud a skeptical approach – aren’t scientists supposed to be skeptical by nature? Or are we to believe every wild claim and every video we see without question? People used to say, “believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see” but even that is far too generous nowadays…

    • Should have made it a forecast to fit the meteorology theme, but I’d wager your prediction will be a good deal more accurate than the average two week forecast.

  12. This is the beginning of the end for the biggest and most expensive Leftist hoa-x in human history….
    It’s so refreshing living in a world of logic, science, reason, rational and critical thought again.
    Life is good and the earth is doin’ just fine.

    • “It’s so refreshing living in a world of logic, science, reason, rational and critical thought again.”
      Thank God!
      Oh, wait.

  13. Now that Hillary has lost, the DNC has cranked up the blame game and is lining sacrifices up to throw under the bus. I guess one of the first bus splats was Donna Brasile (or Brazil, or Brasille, or, … you know who I mean) who, in a meeting, was literally screamed at by a young man who was angry … ready for this? … that now he wouldn’t live to see forty because unaddressed (by Trump) climate change would now take his life.
    Ok, now (I use that word too much) let’s not mock that young fatalist too severely. There actually might be an element of truth to his fears. You see, I’ll bet he lives in his parent’s basement. And, they probably have a house right up to the coast on Malibu. Wouldn’t take much of a sea level rise to flood out the only shelter he’ll ever know. Then he’d have to make his way in the world. If so, he’s done for.
    Be ready for this for the next four years. I think the best thing to do will be to take away their allowances (I’m somewhat serious here, and I’m not talking about welfare) and tell them to go to bed early. And call out temper tantrums when you see them.

    • Nah. These people are mentally deranged, the result of a diet of lies, wishful thinking, and self-glorification. If you look closely at the lives of those who seek power (Hitler and Stalin come to mind), there is a process of increasing detachment between what one thinks is true and what the truth actually is.

  14. Cities are getting trashed, people are getting attacked
    Where is the DNC, Obama, Clintons, ……..all these so called organizations that have been accusing republicans of being “dangerous”..
    Telling them to stop!

    • Latitude-san:
      These silly AstroTurf “spontaneous demonstrations” are being organized and paid for by Obama’s king maker George Soros through his NGOs: Media Matters, MoveOn, BLM and ANSWER.
      i actually hope these fake demos continue for awhile (providing no one gets hurt) to show the American people just how crazy and “deplorable” these loony Lefties are, and to show the world America made the right choice in electing Trump.
      There is already a backlash brewing from this insanity…

      • That’s just it…people have already been sent to the hospital….
        Kids in school have been attacked….elderly people have been attacked..etc etc

      • Look on the bright side. Every person they attack, every building they burn, every car they smash… means another thousand votes for Trump at the next election.
        The left are demonstrating that they’re nothing but a bunch of vicious, spoiled brats. I’ve seen a number of people today posting online along the lines of ‘if I’d known Clinton supporters were like this, I’d never have voted for her’. They won’t make that mistake in 2020.

    • Don’t forget the false flag “hate speech”, made to look like it’s being done by Trump supporters. Yes indeed, the tactics on the left amount to nothing less than pure evil. They actually want to see blood in the streets.

    • They are all at the beach, where the rising seas scare tactic made it a buyers market for a brief time in history.

    • I have read that some protesters are being paid by George Soros, Some confessed having responded to a Craiglist Ad asking for actors to perform at a political rally.

  15. You will soon hear cries of “let’s work together” and “compromise” the last refuge of the corrupt left.
    I Hope Trump uses this enormous sledge hammer to obliterate all funding to the EPA et al and the attack on CO2.

    • Simple one sentance amendment to Clean Air Act. CO2 is not a pollutant for all,purposes of this act.
      EPA has done good (and bad, Gold King mine) work on cleaning up true air and water pollution. Let them continue that at a reduced funding level.

      • Good and bad……
        And speaking of bad, don’t forget Flint, Michigan where the EPA knew the lead levels in the water were high but did nothing.

  16. I think they should all stop crying because rising sea levels is already a major issue, not only threatening the future generations but is putting lives and property in danger as we speak.
    NOAA already have a map showing how tear driven flooding is affecting YOUR county, today.
    Kleenex shares were up 15% at close of trading.

  17. How many can source this quote:
    “Elections have consequences. It’s the political way for winners to tell losers: Tough luck, you lost. Get over it.”
    Give up? It is from Barak Obama’s 2009 inaugural address!

    • That phrase does not show up in Obama’s 2009 inaugural address. Reportedly, he said it to Republicans in a meeting with Congressional Republicans shortly after taking office. I suspect he regrets saying it now, especially after what he’s said about Trump.

      • Obama’s enduring legacy will be eight years of President Trump, and Democrats crying and rioting in the streets.
        He’s probably wishing he’d spent more time playing golf, and less time annoying the right.

  18. Is it too late for me to get my bid in? I’ll gut the EPA for free … OK, OK, I give in: I’ll pay USA my life savings if you put me in charge of streamlining it.

  19. Michael Mann: “A Trump presidency might be game over for the climate.It might make it impossible to stabilize planetary warming below dangerous levels.”
    Kevin Trenberth: “This is an unmitigated disaster for the planet.”
    Benjamin Schreiber: “Millions of Americans voted for a coal-loving climate d-e-n-ier willing to condemn people around the globe to poverty, famine and death from climate change”
    I wonder what will become of Elon Musk’s Tesla cars and the battery storage depository.

    • “A Trump presidency might be game over for the climate”.
      OMG there will be no more climate ? That sounds pretty bad, what will do if we don’t have a climate any more? The weather will be able to do anything. That’s frightening.
      Yes, Mickey it will be game over for your gravy train, Mickey Mouse, pseudo-science.
      Jolly hockey sticks!

      • Yup Greg, all the climate…gone…The Mann has spoken…
        Just a hard vacuum down to sea-level….
        This crowd deserve everything that’s coming.

      • I think he meant to say “[WE are] willing to condemn people around the globe to poverty, famine and death from climate change [policies]”.

  20. “Compromise” is what can destroy the Trump Triumph. Voices will soon be whispering —
    Take it easy, we need to work together. Give them a little of what they want and it will go easier for you. etc.etc. etc.
    The proper course for Trump to follow is very simple. Kill your enemies quickly right at the beginning and get it over with. Peace will then reign.
    Eugene WR Gallun

  21. The good thing is that Trump actually has a chance to fix climate change.
    What will happen to climate change when the records are fixed and the money provided for fake studies stops ??
    Threat over ??

  22. Since the CAGW crowd so frequently quote that 97% fraudulent survey, perhaps Trump could set up a team to carry out an honest survey of the same material and give the result suitable prominence.

    • Yes, a new survey similar to the non-alarmist ones we rarely hear of (von Storch and the early George Mason U. surveys) would be good.

  23. As usual, morally superior Canada’s CBC lectures the world once again and Trump in particular.
    Their resident global warming pseudo journalist starts with:

    Donald Trump needs a science education: Bob McDonald
    A president wrongly informed about science can take us down a dangerous path

    Yet it is this Bob McDonald, who never allows comments on his little agitprop edicts, who should get an education since featuring this classical illustration:
    blockquote>Smoke billows from smokestacks and a coal-fired generator at a steel factory in the industrial province of Hebei, China. Trump has pledged to end ‘the war on coal.’ (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)
    Yes Bobby, water vapour is what’s coming out of these smoke stacks…
    Be afraid, be very afraid…

    • Existing grants may have to stay in place. FY 2017 monies may be sequestered. Future grants may be curtailed. Lots of work, no matter what.

  24. I know I shouldn’t take such joy at the psychological distress of others, but having read so many tweets and articles where it is obvious people are on knifes edge of sanity, I can’t remember giggling so much. What fun.
    A lot of people need to get over themselves. And on Veterans Day they should remember millions have faced greater adversity in their lives.

    • A recent article says when you lie, it changes your brain, and makes it more likely that you will lie in the future. I guess it’s like getting addicted to lying.

  25. The good news just keeps pouring in this week. And with sue-and-settle tactics of the ecoterrorists in the crosshairs, where are the current EPA admins going to “work”?

    • Well, they are going to need laborers to clean up some old gold and silver mines
      A few years on the end of a shovel might do them some good..

  26. “Trump has selected Myron Ebell to lead the EPA…An outspoken global warming denier. WE ARE FUCKED”
    Translation: I am about to lose my great paying taxpayer funded bureaucratic position and now have to go out and find a real job unfortunately Bullshite is not in great demand these days.

  27. Ebell leads EPA transition team. A very good start. Trump’s written ‘Contract with America’ expressly says will leave the COP22 accord, which he can do by executive order triggering the exit provision. CwA also expressly says eliminate CPP as unconstitutional. No funding for Green Climate Fund. No funding for UNFCCC, as it has recognized the Palestinian State as a member and funding would violate existing US law. Together with Congress he can repeal all the renewable subsidies that were extended as part of the last budget 9 months ago. All in all, a good first 100 days on the climate front.
    Trudeau of Canada already publicly offered to reconsider NAFTA.
    And, with Kellyann Conway, Peter Thiel, and Dr. Ben Carson assured senior administration positions, so much for the mysogenistic, homophobic, racist media garbage.
    Next few months are going to be much fun.

    • “No funding for UNFCCC, as it has recognized the Palestinian State as a member and funding would violate existing US law.”
      An important point. Something to watch for in the future because Trump is a BIG supporter of Israel, so the action by the UNFCCC might be all the excuse he needs to cut them off.

  28. Meh. I used to be a snopes regular. I left because of their groupthink discussion board / mailing list attitude on ClimateChange™. Couldn’t get over the fact that they fell for it. Skeptics indeed – on just about everything but the biggest scam of all.

  29. the only good thing about the trumpeters! But I am not keen on killing alternative energy research on such things and network scale power storage and long distance elec power transmission.

      • “You mean Bill Nye the Mechanical Engineering Guy?”
        Indeed – was he chosen so that President Obama could remain the ‘smartest guy in the room’?

      • Bill Nye the science deNyer guy is a TV clown scientist for amusing children.
        He was part of Al Gore frawdulent CO2 “experiment”.

      • Lest we forget Bill Nye started on a Seattle TV post-prime time comedy called ‘Almost Live’ as a bumbling, comedic mad-scientist type. PBS took him seriously (why I don’t know ) and gave him his own kiddie-science show for school age children. When the new POTUS was elected in 2009 Nye was stood up as a valid voice of glow bull warming science. All true.

      • “Lest we forget Bill Nye started on a Seattle TV post-prime time comedy called ‘Almost Live’ as a bumbling, comedic mad-scientist type.”
        He was on the show, but I don’t recall any “mad-scientist” stuff at all. He was famous for his “super hero” character Speed Walker, or something like that.

  30. I have posted this before, and it seems appropriate to do so again.
    By using the word “denier” the advocates of AGW are attempting to do what Robert Jay Lifton referred to in his book, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, as “Loading the Language.”
    “The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis. In thought reform, for instance, the phrase “bourgeois mentality” is used to encompass and critically dismiss ordinarily troublesome concerns like the quest for individual expression, the exploration of alternative ideas, and the search for perspective and balance in political judgments. And in addition to their function of as interpretive shortcuts, these clichés become what Richard Weaver has called “ultimate terms”; either “god terms,” representative of ultimate good; “devil terms,” representative of ultimate evil. In thought reform, “progress,” “progressive,” “liberation,” “proletarian standpoints” and the “dialectic of history” fall into the former category; “capitalist,” “imperialist,” “exploiting classes,” and “bourgeois” (mentality, liberalism, morality, superstition, greed) of course fall into the latter. Totalist language, then, is repetitiously centered on all-encompassing jargon, prematurely abstract, highly categorical, relentlessly judging, and to anyone but its most devoted advocate, deadly dull; in Lionel Trilling’s phrase, “the language of nonthought.”” -Robert Jay Lifton: Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism (1961)
    The word “denier” is a thought-terminating cliché, designed purely to terminate the discussion and denigrate any opposition. It is hurled by an ideology when it cannot make a rational, intellectual, or valid defense of its position against its critics.
    Mind Control Cults and Leftists use these kinds of terms extensively. Think: “racist”, “homophobe”, “hater”.

  31. Trumps’ surrogates need to move the ‘climate change’ discussion from rhetoric (emotional, name calling, appeal to authority, sarcasm and so on) to high level scientific (graphs, data, logic, no subject changing).
    The US and other countries do not have trillions of dollars to waste on green scams that do not work, to address a problem that does not exist. The cult of CAGW surrogates do not need to riot in the streets to fight ‘global warming’.
    It is win-win for all countries, if there is no CAGW problem to solve and we do not waste money on green scams that do not work.
    The IPCC reports did not include the long term paleo record. All of the media reports talks about ‘record’ warming which is the warming that has occurred in the last 150 years (i.e. Highest warming in ‘recorded’ history, i.e. human measured temperature in the last 150 years as opposed to the paleo record, for a longer period, say 11,000 years).
    The paleo proxy data (temperature for the current interglacial period, last 11,000 years) shows the planet has warmed and cooled cyclically. The cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record is the same high latitude warming which we are currently observed.
    The earth was roughly 1C to 1.5C warmer than the current ‘record high’ temperatures during this current interglacial.
    The data clearly shows the IPCC models are not correct (IPCC models show too much warming and predict that the warming should be global, rather than high latitude). The IPCC models were created (tuned) to justify CAGW, not to accurately model the atmosphere.
    General Circulation Model Predicted Warming Vs Observations (Temperature Data from Satellites and Weather Balloons)
    There is no CAGW problem to solve. There is not even observational support for LAGW (Lukewarm anthropogenic warming).
    Observations support the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years is due to solar cycle changes (Solar high latitude warming) SHLW rather than due to the increase in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2, LAGW.
    The paleo data shows there is cyclic warming which in all cases was followed by cooling in both hemispheres.

    Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
    …We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … …. "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.

    • The IPCC models do not “predict” but rather “project.” Models that “predict” convey information to us about the outcomes of events. Models that “project” serve no useful purpose.

  32. Mr. Trump will be sorely tempted to compromise on killing the Paris accord.
    I suggest that the best way to kill it is to submit it to the Senate for advice and consent- unsigned. Let the Senate vote on it: Respect the Constitution, and show the climate kooks that there is *no* popular support in a lawful open society for their obsession.

      • Beth, I am indeed Rud, short for Rudyard, as in Kipling. The first name is honored via the following true story. My father survived WW2 and Korea as a command pilot (with a Guam interlude 1948-1950 where he was a command pilot on retrofitted B-29s for typhoon recons). His flight instructor during WW2 was a Battle of Britton 1941 pilot named directly after Kipling. So I carry that second generation odd name very proudly. Rikki Tivi Tavi, Jungle Book, poem IF… Dad survived two wars because his primary flight instructor was named after writer Kipling. And so I survive today.
        Highest regards from one serf to another.

    • It is NOT a treaty requiring ratification for two distinct reasons. 1. It is nonbinding. 2. There is an opt out.
      The simple things to do are revoke the EPA CPP , which is unconstitutional so stayed by SCOTUS, and invoke the Paris agreement opt out clause. Both are simple executive orders that can be done on the first of Trump’s100 days, in about 1 hour. Then pass a simple 1 sentence amendment to CAA declaring that for all CAA purposes, CO2 is not a pollutant. Simpler that redoing the endangerment finding and relitigating Mass. v. EPA, which woild stretch for years. Reid already removed in 2013 the 60 vote filibuster rule that would otherwise have previously applied to that simple legislation in the Senate. Puts in place a permanent legal fix in the first week Congress reconvenes.

      • ristvan for AG !
        Since US has only “agreement” status for COP22, not ratified, does it even need to opt out?
        I an not even sure that there is not some fast dealing going on with the “coming into force” conditions that were announced last week, since it seems that they may be counting the US into the number of countries already engaged ( on the basis of the “agreement” not ratified position ) and thus the 55% threshold they are claiming to have achieved may be false.
        Ristvan is much more informed on legailities than I am , I’d like to have his opinion on that issue.

      • Greg, there are two legal conflicting standards: international law, only partly binding on the US by treaty, and US binding by the Contsitution. So, under international law the Paris accord is ‘binding’. Except the only binding provision is to submi a new INDC in 4 years. Under US law itmis a mere executive agreement. Undoable by the next executive. Plus. Paris has an explicit opt out. Nobody needs an HLS degree to understand these basics. Opt out is a political nose punch, not legally necessary. Nonbinding INDCs have one Paris enforcement mechanism, UN name and shame. Who cares? “Sticks and stone can hurt my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
        US just needs to grow some kindergarten chops. Highest regards.

  33. President Trump’s biggest problem is going to be ferreting out the 1/3 good from the 2/3 bad the Fed. Gov does and the live wood from the dead wood. (Probably about the same ratio.) One way he could do that would be to turn over some Fed. functions to the States (a lot of which are duplicated at State level anyhow) saying here’s 1/3 of the money (divided by 49) that the Fed was spending on X. 49 because of course he would exclude California from that “gift” because they would do something stupid with the money like spend it on a high-speed train from nowhere A to even lesser nowhere B – well, not actually on THE train, but rather on a committee of accountants and university researchers to plan the best way to study the ramifications of implementing a plan (yet to be created) on the best method and most cost effective way to convince the public of the positive environmental effects of riding bicycles to high-speed train stations.
    But you other States here’s your Hippocratic oath: DO NO HARM to anyone, particularly business and the State next to you with your policies and actions. If you do, the money will stop.

    • Tom J
      Almost wet myself – certainly + Dozens!
      Spread it far and wide.
      But, whilst the recent events are good omens, the Watermelons’ Religion needs to be killed – and Cooked [and Manned??] – otherwise there is a fear that the pendulum may swing again . . .
      and Nu-Watermelons will pervert the data again.
      Go Donald.
      As a brit, I had no vote [quite rightly] on the Trumping of the USA – but, heyyy – I was a Brexiteer!
      Auto, rather cheered!!!

    • He’s probably at the beach where they created a temporary buyers market with rising seas and scary climate stories.

  34. First step: Cut off all funding for NGOs that focus on ecology, particularly global warming dangers. Next, cut back on funds for college level ecology courses. In fact, cut back on all college funding.Next, cut back on EPA funding by about …umm…99%. You’re welcome.

    • You’re just getting started…
      NASA GISS funding… zero
      National Science Foundation funding on global warming… zero
      EPA funding on Global Warming… zero
      NOAA funding on global warming… zero
      State Department funding on global warming… zero
      Department of Energy funding on global warming… zero
      Department of Defense funding on global warming… zero
      The gravy bowl is dry fellas… time to find a new line of work!

    • Mr. Trump should have promised the student types free university education, with the (hidden) proviso of “be careful what you wish for”. The shock of their beloved safe spaces closing down because the staff would not attend for nothing might have focused their attention on reality.

  35. This is going to be good. The truth is snapping back to take its place ahead of policy head fakes and manipulated news…..again.

  36. Is there a slight chance for a class action against journals like Nature for their role in the Hockey Stick and other issues? As it is German owned, there would be at least some benefit for German people, who still live in Orwell’s world.

  37. The real tragedy here is that the assigned free limo parking for the NRDC, WWF, and Sierra Club at the EPA HQ will be taken away. As well as their free lunch privileges at the EPA executive cafeteria.

  38. President Obama will probably, with little fanfare and no publicity, issue
    blanket pardons to Mann and Trenberth for unspecified activities over the
    past 20 years.
    Bill Nye will still look foolish.

  39. EU president Jean-Claude Juncker :
    “We must know what climate policies he intends to pursue. This must be cleared up in the next few months.”
    Climate Action Network’s Arab world co-coordinator:
    “Those countries trying to put obstacles in the way of Paris can now take advantage of the political instability caused by Trump’s election,” she said. “I think that some states which signed the Paris agreement because of all the international pressure will now use the US election as an excuse to put obstacles in the way of a transparent agreement. They are doing that in informal meetings.”
    Liz Gallagher, a senior associate at the environmental thinktank E3G
    “They are using all the tools at their disposal just to try to seed a bit of discontent everywhere, which is frankly a bit pathetic. They can use procedures as much as they like …..,

      • Jean-Claude Juncker :
        “We must know what climate policies he intends to pursue. ”
        This is the typical EU bureaucrat’s trick. He already knows what trump will do, he just tires to pretend that it is still an open question and thus may be negotiated.

    • Because, you know, the US’s presumptive climate change policies should be the biggest concern of the president of the EU. That right there tells you everything you need to know about the EU, and why Brexit happened.
      That “senior associate” is likely to get fired for exposing her employer’s tactics.

    • Out for a walk – don’t usually have time to come here Saturdays…
      Well this is a surprise for certain.
      I would like to say this:
      I hope the skeptic side will not descend into victimisation, muzzling and scapegoating of scientists.
      It has often spoken in these columns about alleged harassment of those of a skeptic view and so I’ll be holding all to that same high standard in the months ahead.
      (and the arctic sea ice is still at a record low for this time of year and no political decision will affe3ct the obvious evidence that shows!)

      • Clearly you have plenty of time, one could consider it a full-time job. You are a prolific poster of alarmist propaganda…hence the post by Brains356.

      • Griff November 12, 2016 at 10:42 am pukes out;
        “I hope the skeptic side will not descend into victimisation, muzzling and scapegoating of scientists.”
        No, Griff. Unlike you guys, we intend to use science. Your tactics never end well.

  40. “As we fought the storms of life
    The old AGW rang bells of fear
    It screamed the calamity is near
    Now it trembles in the darkness
    Ain’t got time to fix the data
    Ain’t gonna need the AGW no longer
    Ain’t gonna need the AGW no more
    This old AGW is gettin’ shaky
    This old AGW lets in the rain
    This old AGW lets in the cold
    But people feel no fear or pain”
    With apology to Shakin’ Stevens

  41. Em ..Don’t have so many Republicans have their fingers in the GREEN SUBSIDY pie ?
    We’ve got to get Climate/Energy policy going in the right direction it might be difficult to get people to move in the right direction.
    Like can we incentivise them to move in the right direction instead of leaving them empty handed and using all their time to make trouble ?
    Like get windfarm engineers working in more useful jobs. Those guys on the ground will know that windfarms are a con anyway.

  42. Riots, death threats, threats of succession, you’d think all those racist conservatives were upset about a leftist being elected… oh wait!

    • + Lots.
      With a Memo – in bold type – to the various UN hangers on:
      ILO, IMO, IMetO, ICAO, and the rest.
      CO2 is good – it is plant food.

  43. I believe Obama’s full statement was “elections have consequences and at the end of the day I won” said to Eric Cantor 1-23-09.

    • Duncan —
      Thank you! Great video. And everything the guy said was absolutely right.
      Except for one thing.
      The left can’t honestly debate because if they tell their “Truth” no one would vote for that nonsense. Remember, their stuff has been put to practice — always with diastorus results.
      I can remember Mao calling for debate — Let A Thousand Flowers Bloom! And a year later those who had tried to debate found themselves suddenly arrested and shipped off to labor camps.
      Eugene WR Gallun

    • Yes very powerful. If only ever liberal could see this and then begin understand and accept responsibility for what they have created. We would not see riots in the streets of the USA, nor the finger pointing. Whenever something does not go their way, it is someone else’s fault.
      Germany is next in 2017, Merkel is gone, the liberals last bastion of hope, their last defender, MARK MY WORDS.

  44. A courageous appointment and a very good sign. Experience informs us that massive pressure will be brought to maintain the status quo. Myron Ebell is well outside all of that and this is a pocketbook issue for the politicians.
    Give em hell Myron

  45. This is interesting. Donald Trump announced this in September, as mentioned above, but the alarmists have just found out about it or acknowledged it. It shows they either did not read about DT’s policies etc. or they blindly thought there was absolutely no way Clinton would lose and just ignored what he said.

  46. So, who’s going to lead the world now on “climate change”, with the US out of the picture? Don’t all step up at once now.

  47. Some people can’t speak without lying.
    These aren’t “climate skeptics,” they’re panic skeptics and bureaucratic control skeptics.

  48. Cut the EPA by 50% within 6 months and put the money into Infrastructure .
    Rolling the EPA into Energy so the economic interests of the country are factored into decisions would correct a major flaw in government .
    See you Gina maybe someone in California will take your act on . They love to run businesses off too .
    But don’t worry all those Regs you have been spewing out will get made into recycled toilet paper .

  49. Won’t it be wonderful when the sun comes up and we breathe clean air the morning after destroying their corrupt edifice.

  50. The EPA needs to be neutered in such away that it can never again be a problem. Or closed down all together and its duties shifted to the states.

  51. It is a sad commentary on science that moving beyond the “global warming” hoax comes from a political development rather than scientists arriving at the truth from considering the data. But I guess you have to take progress any way you can get it.

    • The issue was political from the get go. A mechanism for social change.
      So the science nor the scientists can be separated from it.

  52. I knew it was going to be fun if Trump was elected. Starting off with a bang!
    Donald says one of these days we are all going to be so sick of winning. I don’t think so, Donald, I like winning. I don’t think I will ever get enough to make me sick. Yeah, it’s going to be fun.

    • It’s going to be a hoot. Just checking out The Drudge Report to see the cover of ‘The New Yorker’ and checking the videos at The Media Research Center is a barrel of laughs. While driving up to Chicago for a three stop load I listened to the National Proletariat Radio (NPR) and had a chuckle or two. The left is completely unhinged! I can’t remember so much pure venom being projected by the MSM about any President elect ever. They’re scared shitless. But I’m sure once they dry their tears and change their diapers they will start to collude to bring Trump down in a more coordinated manner. What they don’t seem to understand is that the very people that voted from Trump rejected them every bit as much as they rejected Hillary and nothing they can say or do will change that.

  53. An interesting artifact from the election:
    As we drove from Kent (Ohio) to Canton today for a setup at an antiques show,
    we noticed the county Dem/Repub party workers, and some of the municipal/
    county folks had cleared the political yard sign debris from sight.
    There were NO yards signs left up for Hillary’s campaign in a 40-mile drive.
    There are STILL a goodly amount of Trump/Pence signs up on private property
    along the road sides.
    Just anecdotal, but telling if the phenomenon is widespread.

    • During the election silly season I drove through IN, IL, WI, MI, OH, PA, WV, VA, MD, CT, NY, NJ,MA, KY, TN, MS, MO many times. Trump-Pence signs far out numbered Hillary signs nearly everywhere I drove in all of them during the months leading up to the election. One would see an occasional Bernie bumper sticker but Hillary stickers were very rare. Nothing like the way it was with Obama campaign signs and stickers in 2012. Even in most urban areas in the eastern states where Hillary had the strongest showing the lack of enthusiasm was evident.

  54. Hopefully they’ll change things so man-made reservoirs, canals, etc cannot be called “wetlands” then “protected” by banning people from using them. Places like Lake Lowell, impounded by dams and dikes built in 1980 and 1911. The water attracted various animals, who got along just fine with the boaters, water skiers etc for decades.
    But now it’s the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge with a ton of rules, regulations and restrictions to “protect the wildlife” that never needed any protection, and wasn’t there until the dam was built.
    Theodore Roosevelt created a lot of these refuges at man made irrigation and recreation projects, but it’s only in recent times that the EPA has decided that means human use of what humans built for their use has to be severely restricted.

  55. This seems to be incredibly good news, but as a Briton (who voted Leave), I’m not sure what it means. Is it likely Myron Ebell will be appointed head of the EPA? I certainly hope so. When Donald Trump becomes President in January, will he have the power to fire the present head of the EPA and to appoint Myron Ebell?
    I certainly hope so. When the EPA called CO2 a “pollutant” it was obvious they had lost any concept of reality. CO2 is a trace gas that is natural, clean, invisible, harmless in normal concentrations, and it is what trees and plants breathe in. It is a sad irony that the people who call themselves “green” demonise the very thing that makes the world green.

  56. So Ebell talks to the scientists and all the scientists, as near as makes no difference, tell him, no, it is real, and by the way we aren’t involved in this to expand the government.
    And all the other scientists in all the other countries in the world, they say, yes, we’re with the US scientists on that. And we aren’t involved in expanding anyone’s government.
    and then we get into political opinion driving muzzling of science.

      • I’ve seen Griff post here numerous times, even if ‘we’ don’t agree with him, insulting his intelligence, shouting him down does not do anything. Griff made a logical statement (from his point of view), he did not insult anyone (this time). I’d prefer to see you explain to him a counter argument, or your opinion, opposed to doing the exact same thing the establishment has done to us “deniers” for 20 years. Don’t become one of ‘them’. We could do with more interaction from other points of view so we don’t all live in a bubble. Sometimes a whisper is easiest to be heard.

    • Griff: provide your evidence. Especially as to numbers of scientists. Please avoid quoting from rigged ‘97%’ polls.

  57. Saturdays NYT article quotes him to the effect that the 2015 Clean Energy Policy will impede economic growth.
    Probably not as much as five feet of water in lower Manhattan, but what the hell.
    I’m hoping for the best, but this guy, Banning, and Pence are storybook bad guys. We’re in for a rough ride.
    “May you live in interesting times.”

  58. Can we really call those people “Liberals”? No! We can’t! They are Eco-Fascists or at least a sort of “Special-Democrats” disparaging those as populists, who are not of the same opinion!

  59. The scientific consensus is now easy to fix. Now that the Church of Warming sect of the government religion of Secular Socialism has been defeated, the funding should only go to those that will provide conclusions that CO2 is meaningless. Hate to propose false science from the other direction, but too much damage has been done by clowns dressed as scientists like Hansen, Mann, Jones, et al.

  60. Been a reader of WUWT for years. Frankly I’m appalled at all the shallow politics on display here recently. WUWT is a science website, I thought. Celebrating anti-science, creationism and ignorance being promoted just because it coincides with the message of WUWT; that climate change is best ameliorated if or when it gets “worse” is a poor substitute for true debate and scientific argument.
    Maybe I’ll come back when all the right wingers have finished their f***-yeah posturing. Possibly 2020.

    • So you are honestly suggesting that the CAGW hysteria has been science and not politics. You want those who have been watching and listening closely to all the: “may, maybe, could, possilby, likely, to believe that ALGORE’s documentary wasn’t science fiction, That Al’s declaration on the morning shows, that “The Debate is over” as if science plays out in a debate class, that the Science is settled, as if, any real scientist would dare suggest that a thesis should stand unchallenged because it is politically popular and has been submitted to a voting consensus? Yep. probably a good idea that you stay away from this site.

  61. Jeef November 13, 2016 at 11:53 pm

    Been a reader of WUWT for years. Frankly I’m appalled at all the shallow politics on display here recently.

    I do love how when folks like you agree with the politics on display it’s serious thought, but when you disagree suddenly it’s “shallow politics”.

    WUWT is a science website, I thought.

    Then you thought wrong. It’s about interesting things on the planet, like say who runs the EPA …

    Celebrating anti-science, creationism and ignorance being promoted just because it coincides with the message of WUWT; that climate change is best ameliorated if or when it gets “worse” is a poor substitute for true debate and scientific argument.

    So now in addition to being “deplorable”, all folks who disagree with you are now in favor of “anti-science, creationism and ignorance”??? How’s that working out for you? Here’s the best comment I’ve seen on your tendency …


    Maybe I’ll come back when all the right wingers have finished their f***-yeah posturing. Possibly 2020.

    Make it 2060, there’s a good chap, I’ll be gone by then …

Comments are closed.