Guest post by David Middleton
Look at All the Climate Change Deniers Vying for Jobs in the Trump Administration
This
can’t be goodis grrreat!!!JEREMY SCHULMANNOV. 18, 2016
Donald Trump is a global warming denier. He wants to “cancel” the Paris climate agreement and repeal the Clean Power Plan—the twin pillars of President Barack Obama’s efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. He’s even promised to revive the coal industry, against all odds.
But Trump won’t be able to do these things all by himself. To fulfill his campaign promise and reverse the steps of his predecessor in the fight against warming, he’s going to need an entire administration of like-minded people. Environmental officials who reject climate science. National security officials who dismiss concerns that climate change will destabilize the world. Diplomats who oppose international climate agreements. Department heads who want to drill, baby, drill.
[…]
Some “highlights” from MJ’s blacklist…
Reince Priebus
Position: Chief of staff
Views on climate change: “Democrats tell us they understand the world, but then they call climate change, not radical Islamic terrorism, the greatest threat to national security. Look, I think we all care about our planet, but melting icebergs aren’t beheading Christians in the Middle East.” [CPAC speech, 2/27/15]
I’m fairly certain that “melting icebergs aren’t beheading Christians in the Middle East,” or anywhere else in the world.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)
Position: Attorney general nominee
Views on climate change: “The balloon and satellite data track each other almost exactly, and it shows almost no warming. So what we’re talking about is: The predictions aren’t coming true.” [Washington Watch via Right Wing Watch, 11/30/15]
Well, d’uh….
Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state
Position: Head of transition team for domestic issues
Views on climate change: “Another false environmentalist narrative is the global warming hoax. A few decades back, environmentalist “scientists” started devising computer models that predicted man-made calamity—Manhattan submerged by rising Atlantic waters—within 10 or 15 years ago. It turns out the models were rigged, the data were falsified and, in fact, there has been no measurable warming for nearly 20 years. Most troubling of all, the lying scientists colluded to ruin the careers of honest scientists who tried to tell the truth.” [Washington Times, 4/30/15]
“Manhattan submerged by rising Atlantic waters—within 10 or 15 years”… Riiiight…
Eric Bolling, Fox News host
Possible position: “A position…in the Department of Commerce,” according toPolitico. Among other things, Commerce oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is one of the country’s most important bodies for researching climate science.
Views on climate change: Bolling, a former crude oil trader on the New York Mercantile Exchange, pointed out last year that “there’s a great tweet that’s going around the internet: When Al Gore was born, there were 130,000 glaciers, and now there are only 130,000 glaciers.” Here’s how he explained his views on climate science in 2014: “I have two questions for you. Number one: If a…meteorologist can’t tell us if it’s going to rain tomorrow or be, you know, 20 degrees or or 50 degrees, how can they tell us what it’s going to be 2,100 years from now—that this whole global warming thing, what we’re doing now, is going to affect then? And the other thing is: Even if some of the carbon we’re emitting…is manmade, how much is it? And is it really the reason why the globe is increasing in temperature—if it is—every so slightly? I mean, there’s so many questions. The hoax is that if a meteorologist were to say, or a weather scientist were to say, that ‘yeah, this is normal—it’s weather, it’s cold, it’s hot, it’s normal,’ then they wouldn’t get funded. All these big projects wouldn’t be funded.”
Future NOAA Director Bolling is wrong, there are 198,000 glaciers in the world.
John Bolton, former UN ambassador
Possible position: Secretary of State
Views on climate change: “Obama can achieve his climate change legacy only through delicate negotiations with Congress. His poor relations with the House and Senate, especially on foreign policy, appear to render success unlikely. Obama may rely on his unilateral authority to join a world climate pact [in Paris], but without Congress his most important promises will be empty ones whose fate will be left to his successor.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/1/15]
Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas)
Possible positions: US Supreme Court justice
Views on climate change: “If you are a…liberal politician who wants government power, if that is your driving urge—government power over the American citizenry—then climate change is the perfect pseudoscientific theory. Why is that? Because it can never be disproven…The climate is always changing. It has been changing from the beginning of time.” [Cruz campaign event via the Washington Post, 2/3/16]
Future Supreme Court Justice Cruz is spot-on. Just ask Dr. Kevin Trenberth
Dr Kevin Trenberth, from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, argues that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is now so clear that the burden of proof should lie with research which seeks to disprove the human role.
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.)
Possible position: National security adviser
Views on climate change: “And here we have the President of the United States up in Canada talking about climate change. I mean, God, we just had the largest attack…on our own soil in Orlando. Why aren’t we talking about that? Who is talking about that? I mean, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, Boston, people forget about 9/11!” [Fox News, 6/29/16]
Gov. Nikki Haley (S.C.)
Possible positions: Secretary of State
Views on climate change: “‘[The Clean Power Plan] is exactly what we don’t need,’ the governor said after addressing a gathering of the SC Electric Cooperatives at Wild Dunes Resort on the Isle of Palms. ‘This is exactly what hurts us. You can’t mandate utility companies which, in turn, raises the cost of power. That’s what’s going to keep jobs away. That’s what’s going to keep companies away.’ She added that officials in Washington ‘stay out of the way.’…’We need to be able to do our jobs and continue to recruit companies and recruit jobs without additional mandates,’ Haley said.” [The Post and Courier, 6/3/14]
Harold Hamm, oil and gas executive
Possible positions: Secretary of Interior, secretary of Energy
Views on climate change: “Obama imposed punitive regulations to stop this [oil and gas] renaissance, and in his administration’s very own words, they want to crucify America’s oil and natural gas producers…President Trump will release America’s pent-up energy potential, get rid of foreign oil, trash punitive regulations, create millions of jobs, and develop our most strategic geopolitical weapon: crude oil…Every time we can’t drill a well in America, terrorism is being funded…Climate change isn’t our biggest problem; it’s Islamic terrorism. Every onerous regulation puts American lives at risk.” [Republican National Convention, 7/20/16]
Bonus—Views on earthquake science: “Oil tycoon Harold Hamm told a University of Oklahoma dean last year that he wanted certain scientists there dismissed who were studying links between oil and gas activity and the state’s nearly 400-fold increase in earthquakes, according to the dean’s e-mail recounting the conversation. Hamm, the billionaire founder and chief executive officer of Oklahoma City-based Continental Resources, is a major donor to the university, which is the home of the Oklahoma Geological Survey. He has vigorously disputed the notion that he tried to pressure the survey’s scientists. ‘I’m very approachable, and don’t think I’m intimidating,’ Hamm was quoted as saying in an interview with EnergyWire, an industry publication, that was published on May 11. ‘I don’t try to push anybody around.'” [Bloomberg,5/15/15]
Note to Mother Jones: Wastewater injection wells and fracking are two different things.
EARTHQUAKES
Hamm says he wasn’t pressuring Okla. scientist, but seeking information
Laura Ingraham, radio host
Possible position: Press secretary
Views on climate change: “This entire effort [the Paris climate negotiations] is about setting up global rules of governance. Rules that will, if instituted—which we know they won’t be—but if ever instituted would mean that we have less control over our own destiny as a country than we do today. Because Congress will have limited ability to change any treaty. Again, I don’t think it’s going to happen. But if these rules should go into place, we should expect the same compliance from countries like China that we get from China in deals like the World Trade Organization and the World Trade Organization Treaty. So, if people want less sovereignty in the United States, less independence, less oversight, our congressional authority to be meaningful, then we should all be excited about what’s going on with 150 leaders in Paris. But this has nothing to do with terrorism. It has everything to do with bringing America’s economy down, hurting the fossil fuel industry, etc., etc.—one of the few sectors that’s actually growing jobs and still paying people decent wages in the United States. So forgive me if I’m not all hot and bothered by the Paris events.” [Fox News via Media Matters, 12/1/15]
Future Press Secretary Ingraham nails it…
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”
–Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC
Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska
Possible positions: Secretary of Interior
Views on climate change: “I want people to be empowered to ask questions about what is being fed them from the scientific community, that something’s not making a whole lot of sense when it comes to inconsistent data that is being produced and being fed, especially to our children, when it comes to global warming or climate change—whatever they’re calling it today…It’s a problem right from the start when you’re led to believe that 97 percent of scientists all agree that there is a consensus on global warming.” [Guardian, 4/15/16]
Rick Perry, former governor of Texas
Possible positions: Secretary of Energy
Views on climate change: “I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized. I think that there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change…The cost to the country and to the world of implementing these anti-carbon programs is in the billions, if not trillions, of dollars at the end of the day. And I don’t think, from my perspective, that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and, from my perspective, is more and more being put into question.” [Perry campaign speech via CBS News, 8/17/11]
Considering the fact that 43% of Americans are unwilling to pay more than $1 per month to fight the mythical AGW beast and less than one-out-of-three are willing to pay more than $20 per month, it’s a safe bet that there is little support for spending trillions and devastate our economy to “battle climate change.”
How Much Will Americans Pay to Battle Climate Change? Not Much
Sam Ori is the executive director of the Energy Policy Institute at University of Chicago.
A wide range of public opinion polls point to a clear and growing trend: Americans of all political stripes are increasingly worried about climate change. This is undoubtedly good news for those advocating for robust policies to reduce carbon emissions, the main contributor to climate change.
But here’s a less asked and probably more important question: What are Americans actually willing to pay to do something about it?
[…]
This is what researchers from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) and the Associated Press—NORC Center for Public Affairs Research at the University of Chicago set out to better understand. Their nationally representative poll found that 43% of Americans were unwilling to pay an additional $1 per month in their electricity bill to combat climate change—and a large majority were unwilling to pay $10 per month. That’s despite the fact that a whopping 77% said they think climate change is happening and 65% think it is a problem the government should do something about. Support plummets as the amount of the fee increases.
This is an upside-down result. The best available science tells us that Americans should be willing to pay considerably more, because the damages from climate change are so great—including to them personally. If we use the federal government’s estimate of the combined social cost of carbon pollution and apply it to the typical U.S. household’s electricity consumption on today’s national grid mix, the average household faces damages of almost $20 per month. Yet just 29% of respondents said they would be willing to pay at least that much.
[…]
This bit is priceless and worth repeating:
The best available science tells us that Americans should be willing to pay considerably more, because the damages from climate change are so great—including to them personally. If we use the federal government’s estimate of the combined social cost of carbon pollution and apply it to the typical U.S. household’s electricity consumption on today’s national grid mix, the average household faces damages of almost $20 per month. Yet just 29% of respondents said they would be willing to pay at least that much.
The first part strikes me the same way that this Roy Spencer quip did:
95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
“The best available science tells us that” the observations are wrong. So, if that same “best available science tells us that” global warming will inflict $20/month of damages on the typical household, we should be thankful that President-elect Trump will populate his administration who will focus economic growth and combating Islamist terrorist groups, rather than regulatory malfeasance and combating the weather.
“elections have consequences”
..especially when someone is elected they don’t own
And Trump is someone they can’t easily intimidate.
or buy…,
I just discovered I can’t post on Mother Jones comments because I am a conservative. Inclusive??, I think NOT!
Leftists will go to great lengths to preserve their echo chambers.
Anything Trump can do that will destroy the demented agenda Obama has imposed on the US is completely acceptable.
Personally, I’d opt for a constitutionally sound policy of rolling back the madness. Nothing like making it legally and constitutionally defensible. There’s no reason to replicate the methods of our opponents. The House is a Republican majority. The Senate is a Republican majority. The majority of State Governors are Republican. There can be due and orderly process. We CAN take the time to read it before we pass it.
I’m trying to figure out what the problem is with what Bolton said.
He pointed out that a treaty that hasn’t been ratified by the Senate can be ignored by future presidents.
That’s a completely true statement and would be equally true of any treaty negotiated by Trump but not sent to the Senate.
What’s the evidence that any of the people listed above actually are being considered for the positions listed? My understanding is that the official Trump staff is being tight lipped.
I would would agree with most of these appointments, and the one that I don’t support I just don’t know enough about to take a position.
Speculation, mainly based on who has visited Trump Tower in the last week.
A tweet from the Trump organization this morning was put up on FOX Cable. It said Trump has made his decisions about all his cabinet positions. There was NO information about what those decisions were/are.
The Global Warming hoax ripoff, ending $1.5 Trillion a year of waste.
Is that the actual number, $1.5 trillion?
Possibly, when you add in the increased cost of electricity and gasoline.
Spot the vested interests: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/spot-the-vested-interest-the-1-5-trillion-climate-change-industry/
the quote “Climate Change Business Journal estimates the Climate Change Industry is a $1.5 Trillion dollar escapade” is from that Jo Nova link, but you can’t read the source document for that number without buying the $995 report. Did I miss something somewhere?
So when did I ever care what the alt-left publication “Mother Jones” thinks about anything??
If I “cared,” it wouldn’t have been much fun to ridicule them.
Touché
I suspect that many of the Climate Change mongers really fear is if Trump, say, wins two terms, and manages to gut the whole AGW agenda by pulling out of various agreements and stomping on the EPA’s overreaches, and then due to solar or whatever temps are the same or down at the end of his term. Hard to argue that it’s going to be doom to Mother Gaia if after that mean ol’Trump ruins everything the planet’s temperature isn’t cooperating. I mean, they will miss the control and money immediately, but longer term being convincingly proven to be wrong will gut the whole scheme and they’ll have to come up with some other gloom and doom scenario to grab power and money with. Maybe, say, an impending ice age!
What will the world do with all those brainwashed kids who are currently going through school? They’ll have to be de-programmed somehow and the consequence will be little heads exploding everywhere. Oh, the horrors!
/sarc
“They’ll have to be de-programmed somehow”
It’s called the reality of a job.
The new administration ought to call for a series of debates on CAGW, one set modeled after the Dutch Climate Dialog site, for scientists, and another televised set for the public. There should be sequels too. And colleges should be encouraged to establish informal “science courts” to moderate and judge online debates on various aspects of the climate controversy.
Unless this is done before, or coincident with, attempting to roll back Obama’s climate initiatives, there will be monster-sized demonstrations across the US. Demonstrators will believe that the skeptical side has no case and is acting only out of self-interest, ideology, creationism, and pig-headedness. That’s what the participants in the huge demonstration in NY City recently believed.
It would be a blunder not to anticipate their response and attempt to forestall this pushback.
A lot of textbooks will have to be rewritten. It’s remarkable how far reaching the mistake of settling science by decree, rather than the scientific method, has been, especially with regard to education. To retrain the children, they need to be taught how this bias has so horribly broken science so that this mistake will never repeated again.
Not to worry.
Many, if not most, of us experienced similar shocks that much of our early school educations included insane amounts of rumor, opinions, incorrect beliefs and so on.
The more exercised a teacher is when raving about Earth’s certain future dooms, the less kids pay attention.
Starting with us kids who were taught to huddle under school desks, in the event of a nuclear war…
I did wonder once when the teachers had us under the desks while a tornado passed nearby. Since tornadoes are unperturbed by things like desks and small kids, why should I place any faith in our desks being nuclear bomb proof?
I kept waiting for the teachers to crawl under their massive oak desks, with six inches available under them; instead they were always bouncing around smacking our feet, hands, heads, whatever was exposed to their pointers or yard sticks.
Mother Jones, when it comes to intellectual discourse, will need to rebrand. I suggest Mother Hubbard.
Rolling Stone magazine probably will need a buy-out after its fake rape story legal judgements.
Maybe Mother Jones and Rolling Stone will merge? If so, I’d suggest Mother Stoned as the combined name.
I still have one of the early “Whole Earth Catalogs” that the early M. Jones allegedly emulated.
There are zero similarities. M. Jones is absurd to extremes.
The lamentations of their women and all that.
They’ve scammed us for a couple decades now, it’s time they pay up.
This is going to be highly entertaining.
+100 😀
Oh the Liberal wailing, teeth gnashing, and butt-hurts are going to grow ever more intense as January 20th approaches.
And not just climate related. Everything the Liberals thought they had accomplishd are about to be unwound, simply as Mr John Bolton (above quote) pointed out: “but without Congress his most important promises will be empty ones whose fate will be left to his successor.”
The Liberals needs some harsh civics lessons in how the US constitutional republic operates with separation of powers. Obama tried to ignore Separation of Powers, to the cheering, approving Progressive sychophants. He about to pay the price for that hubris.
But the green blob was all in for Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the realization that they lost is not very pretty. Once upon a time Mother Jones was anti-establishment, but got so coopted by the Democrats they have all the intellectual rigor of ThinkProgress or Media Matters–how do we reword the latest press release?
Well, Hillary “Rod’em” Clinton won’t be rodding anyone in the near future.
“Clinton won’t be rodding anyone in the near future.”
Not as president anyway.
what have all these potential Trump appointees got to say about this?
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/18/world/sea-ice-arctic-antarctic-lows/
or this
‘la-la-la – can’t hear you’ ?
Well I expect they’ll say that Arctic ice cover is variable and that there have been several major excursions over the last century which cannot have been caused by human co2. Please demonstrate a causal link between human co2 and current Arctic ice cover variability.
“They” might also say:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2007/10/#10September
“Impacts of ocean circulation
In the August 22 report, we explained that another part of the 2007 story is “memory” of the sea ice to changes that have been unfolding over the past few decades. Our focus there was on the apparent transition to younger, thinner ice since the late 1970. As discussed, factors contributing to this thinning involve a general rise in air temperatures, and changing winds that have transported fairly thick ice out of the Arctic Ocean into the North Atlantic. An issue that we haven’t addressed, yet, is changes in ocean circulation.
One prominent researcher, Igor Polyakov at the University of Fairbanks, Alaska, points out that pulses of unusually warm water have been entering the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic, which several years later are seen in the ocean north of Siberia. These pulses of water are helping to heat the upper Arctic Ocean, contributing to summer ice melt and helping to reduce winter ice growth. Another scientist, Koji Shimada of the Japan Agency for Marine–Earth Science and Technology, reports evidence of changes in ocean circulation in the Pacific side of the Arctic Ocean. Through a complex interaction with declining sea ice, warm water entering the Arctic Ocean through Bering Strait in summer is being shunted from the Alaskan coast into the Arctic Ocean, where it fosters further ice loss.
Many questions still remain to be answered, but these changes in ocean circulation may be important keys for understanding the observed loss of Arctic sea ice.”
Let’s play assume that the Arctic ice extent flatlines all the way across to next March.
What is the impact of that to humanity? To the ecosystem?
Zero, and nada.
The longer Arctic sea water is exposed to the cold polar night sky, the more heat is dumped to space via radiation. The longer Arctic sea water is exposed to cold polar air masses, the more vapor becomes available to create land mass snowfall (where do you think the Larentian Ice shield comes from during glaciations?)
Humanity has far bigger things to worry about than thinking we control the weather.
“Humanity has far bigger things to worry about than thinking we control the weather.” ……….Let alone sea ice extent in Arctic. Dang there are foolish imbeciles in this world…to think tweaking CO2 content in the atmosphere will grow ice in the arctic. AND WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO? I and the rest of the the flora and fauna on earth desire warmth by and large and the few 1/10ths that we have possibly gained in the past century or so is WELCOME. But of course we know it isn’t warming everywhere. Chutzpah!
A better test is to determine the effect melting all of the planets ice and snow will have on the surface temperature.
The Earth has an average ice coverage of about 13%. Relative to albedo, ice is about as reflective as cloud, yet clouds cover 2/3 of the planet. The difference in reflection is between about 10% for land and 50% for ice and snow and on average, solar input is 240 W/m^2.
The total new power added to the system if all the ice on the planet disappeared is:
240 * (.5 – .1) * (1 – 2/3) = 32 W/m^2
Distribute this over the rest of the planet and we get a total ‘forcing’ of:
32*.13 = 4.1 W/m^2
Note that this is nearly the same as the claimed forcing from doubling CO2 and doesn’t even account for the fact that the total solar input is lower at the poles and that this is where all the ice is.
If we take this forcing and multiply by 1.6 (the ratio between incident power and surface emissions), we get a total increase in surface emissions of 4.1*1.6 = 6.6 W/m^2.
If the average temperature is now 288K, surface emissions are 390 W/m^2 (even Trenberth agrees on this which is 1.6 times larger than the incident solar forcing) and add 6.6 to the surface emissions and convert back to a surface temperature, the resulting temperature increases by 1.2C.
IF ALL THE ICE ON THE PLANET WAS GONE THE TOTAL INCREASE IN SURFACE TEMPERATURE WOULD BE ONLY 1.2C.
If we take the 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing said to arise from doubling CO2 and multiply this by 1.6 to determine the resulting increase in surface emissions, we get about 6 W/m^2. Add this to the 6.6 from melting all the planets ice and snow and we get 12.6 W/m^2. Add this to the 390 starting point and convert to a temperature, the total increase becomes 2.2C.
If doubling CO2 is equivalent to 3.7 W/m^2 of solar forcing and this somehow permanently melted all the ice on the planet, the total temperature increase would only be 2.2C and even this is well below the nominal 3C effect claimed to arise from doubling CO2.
If all the ice was gone the Arctic and Antarctic regions would ship a great deal more heat into space.
Griff, the very first quote from a potential appointee covered this:
“Look, I think we all care about our planet, but melting icebergs aren’t beheading Christians in the Middle East.”
What terrible consequences are you imagining will happen as a result of lower-than-usual arctic sea ice extent in November?
Arctic sea ice minimum was the same this years in 2007 and greater than in 2012 essentially has not decreased in TEN YEARS. In the same period we have emitted more CO2 than ever before.
What does Griff say about this ? ‘la-la-la – can’t hear you’ ?
President Trump: What will it cost to move the red curve up to the dashed curve?
Cabinet: Eleventy gazillion dollars.
President Trump: Does it matter if the red curve is below the dashed curve?
Cabinet: No.
President Trump: Would it be good or bad if the red curve was above the dashed curve.
Cabinet: Bad, really bad.
President Trump:
Good one, Dave! 🙂
Here is the rest of the story!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
If you’d quit saying “la-la-la” constantly and study the subject in an honest way, you’d come to the conclusion that you’ve been wrong all this time, Griff. Of course, it takes a lot of courage to face the facts and accept them, so we’ll see how you rate.
Check out the 1930’s sea ice maps…
While Griff is at it, perhaps he can also investigate sea ice extent during the Mid Holocene optimum, some 6000 years ago.
http://yourdogsfriend.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/squirrel.jpg
Who gives a crap? I sure don’t. It’s a natural flux that has occurred many times in past history with much more melting in past scenarios that this current one. But to play your game, what do you have to say about this? All while the Antarctic continues to grow and chill these past 30yrs. Poof!
I am sick and tired of seeing this Arctic/Antarctic contrast shown with no explanation. My 2011 pa\per in Enerrgy & Environment proves that the Arctic warming is caused by a change in of North Atlantic currents’ flow pattern at the turn of the century. After 2000 years of nothing happening in the Arctic this flow pattern suddenly changed, such that the path of the warm Gulf Stream water flowing north parallel to the east coast changed course to directly enter the Arctic Ocean. Direct measurement of Atlantic water temperature entering the Arctic Ocean in 2011 showed it to be higher than anytime in history. This shift in the currents was interrupted by a cold spell between 1940 and 1970 but warming was restored at that point and has continued to this day. It is the warm Gulf Stream water entering the Arctic Ocean that is causing the thetemperature difference between the poles. If you could remove it then both poles would show identical temperature patterns. Climate “scientists” who do not know this are too lazy to read the literature where all this is explained. It is hard to believe that non-readers can be hired for such important posts but proof that they are here comes from their demonstrated ignorance of the Arctic warming pattern.
High-latitude sea ice seems to be doing rather well for a post-super El Nino. All that leftover warm water from the equator is being driven pole-ward by the developing La Nina. Teleconnections and all that, don’t cha know?
Give it a few years before you commit another trillion dollars or so, Griffie.
If you want to cool something, you send the excess warm to the coldest place, to get rid of it.
I’m guessing that this is Mother Nature bring to balance the sleepy sun.
correction . 2nd line should read
I’m guessing that this is Mother Nature trying to balance against the sleepy sun.
When you can scientifically link that not only to “global” warming, but ALSO to “Co2 induced” global warming, and the CO2 level increase to human CO2 emissions from fossil fuel buring, and scientifically show that the warming resulting from such human CO2 emissions will be large and catastrophic, you let us know. Until then, out reaction to your sea ice graph will continue to be the Dave Middleton “cricket noise.” And rightly so.
Isn’t it good to see it getting back a small amount to the Holocene normal after the ASTOUNDINGLY EXTREME high level of 1979
Yes indeed. I don’t like ice much. Makes me cold.
They might look at this: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/11/21/arctic-sea-ice-update/#comments
No matter how many times this is explained to Griffy, until he gets the answer he wants, he’s going to keep whinning that we are all ignoring him.
Griffy, 6 months ago, when the magic line was above the 2012 line instead of below it, were you going around tellling everyone how this is proof that the arctic isn’t melting? If not, why the blatant hypocrisy?
El nono
Griff, continues his leftist obsession over Arctic ice extent on a few days of data.
I told him in other places that he is ignoring published science research,attesting to little (far less than now) or no summer ice extent for THOUSANDS of years,earlier in the interglacial.
Give it up Griff, you are a one note wailer.
What is a “leftist obsession over Arctic ice”? I can imagine having a obsession
over ice or a “leftist” obsession over poverty or injustice but a leftist obsession over
sea ice seems like pure nonsense.
The obsession isn’t with sea ice, it is with continuing the CAGW narrative. The hard-to-predict arctic gives lots of room for speculation, and so is useful to promote the idea that humans are causing the climate to behave abnormally.
“what have all these potential Trump appointees got to say about this?”
Hopefully Grifter, they will treat it with the contempt it deserves, of course.
When Mark Twain allegedly wrote “Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.” he was JOKING PEOPLE!
If they felt the need to say anything at all, they might say “It’s been warming since the last ice age. No one disagrees we are in a long gradual warming period. But to blame human activity, based on models which are not proving very accurate? And to propose ‘controlling’ climate? You have to be kidding.”
No trend. The ice always returns in winter and never leaves in summer. The worst recent winter ice was in 2012. The best in 2013 and 2014. What do you have to say, Griff? That it means something?
griffiepoo!?
Throwing straw men around, griffiepoo, again?
Twisting off topic posts so you can post your personal “argumentum ad Ignorantiums”?
Let’s see how the Arctic ice is doing next August? No need to watch while winter is approaching. Natural variability is quite amazing, to those who ignore history.
Meanwhile: Greenland is right next to the Arctic; why isn’t griffiepoo talking about Greenland?
Greenland is gaining Gigatons of ice ahead of previous years. Why would global warming affect Arctic ice yet allow nearby Greenland ice to accelerate ice gain?
Griff,
here one of many possible replies:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/last:156/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/last:156/trend
No decline in annual arctic sea ice cover for the last 11 years.
Of course cherry picked – I just went back to see when a small decline is visible. Yes, with 12 years you see a very small decline in arctic sea ice.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/last:156/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/last:156/trend
What vou see on a daily base is weather.
“Rick Perry, former governor of Texas
And I don’t think, from my perspective, that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and, from my perspective, is more and more being put into question.”
Someone should gently point out to Rick that cagw is a hypothesis or conjecture and not a theory. It would only become a theory if sufficient evidence were to come to light which supports it. There is none at all after the best part of a half century of frantic effort and trillions in funding. It is still at the hypothesis or conjecture stage and from the perspective of any honest person with a pulse – a conclusively failed one at that.
Absolutely right. Most people don’t know that there is a difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
Most people have no reason to care.
Or between a speculation and a conjecture!
If I were advising the Trump Administration it would be to alternate key policy moves between direct and indirect moves to benefit working class America. Giving the required six month notice to the partners on repeal of NAFTA would be a direct move. Gutting EPA and wiping NASA Climate division would be indirect moves. Cutting middle class tax rates would be a direct move.
“Gutting EPA and wiping NASA Climate division”
Both of these organizations are important along with NOAA. The problem is that the current administration is so bought in to the false belief that CAGW is real, it has enabled a deeper and more encompassing corruption among these agencies.
What the Trump administration needs to do is redirect those agencies towards the goals they were originally established to pursue. This means removing CO2 from the EPA’s jurisdiction so they can concentrate on real pollution and to defund GISS and NOAA projects whose primary justifications are climate change concerns. NOAA should focus on weather and GISS should focus on making raw data available for others. This also means that Schmidt, McCarthy and Sullivan either need to be fired, flipped or made so uncomfortable that they quit at which point they can be replaced with more open minded individuals who believe in science driven by the scientific method, rather than by a political narrative.
We are going to get a real insight into just how good a manager Trump is when he takes on the federal bureaucracy. This is an almost overwhelming job. Reforming just one federal agency is a monumental task. Doing them all is an order of magnitude greater effort.
But Trump says he likes looking at detailed financial reports and the workings of business and government, so he might be the right person at the right place to do some or all of this. Lord knows we need it.
Of course, the simpler way to reform is to abolish federal agencies. But that is all to be sorted out in the future. This is going to be very interesting, and right out in public.
I can’t hardly wait for the next 60 days to pass. 🙂
Even when the EPA concentrates on “real” pollution, they can still do real damage as they seek to drive levels of pollution way below levels that can cause harm.
I thought “they” were going to stop using the derogatory term “Denier”?? That’s all that I hear now…it’s an ugly term…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/23/the-associated-press-drops-the-ugly-climate-term-denier-in-their-ap-stylebook/
Mother Jones doesn’t follow rules of Journalism or the AP style guide…
Or the rules of logic either.
So, you think the historic global temperature records are reliable?
Here’s how the temperature records for the ocean (remember, that’s 70% of the earth’s surface) were compiled.
ERI= Engine room intake
Bucket= (literally) throwing a canvas bucket overboard (I swear to god, I’m not making this up)
Source: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_1_figinline.pdf
Climate “science” doesn’t have a clue whether the global average temperature is warmer or not.
Yes and senor Karl has reduced the “unreliable” buoys’ territory in favor ERI and Unknown.
I have actually done that (bucket). I wonder how the oceanographic cruise measurements fit into this. Reversing thermometers took it at depth, other methods at surface.
First they threw canvas buckets. In later years they threw metal buckets. How much difference the greater evaporation from canvas buckets made on the temperature measurements, nobody knows.
Thanks for the memory – I threw a metal bucket in the early 1970s.
“Bucket= (literally) throwing a canvas bucket overboard (I swear to god, I’m not making this up)”
For those who haven’t thrown a bucket (canvas or substitute), remember to tie the retrieving line onto the deck railing rather than holding onto the line yourself.
Our procedure was to notify the engine room of our bucket toss so they could annotate the recording thermometer chart for the seawater intake. That way it was easier to match up deck and intake temperatures. Contrary to the statement that buckets were out of fashion by the 1940s, paired measurements were being taken into the 1970s.
Neil, do you have any links to these “paired measurements”? I’d not heard of these, and they would be great for combining (or at least quantifying the differences between) the bucket and intake temperature datasets.
w.
Willis: I did a quick on line search, typically
oregon+state+university+oceanography+sea+surface+temperature+protocol
or the same, with “bucket” as the last search item. I came up with this, among many, many other items:
http://www-po.coas.oregonstate.edu/research/data-obs/
and the data depository at
http://ltop.coas.oregonstate.edu/
“Temperature and salinity measurements were made regularly along this line from 1961 to 1971; these past data show the seasonal cycle clearly. Recent observations can be compared with the seasonal means from 1961-1971 for evidence of climate change. Although current measurements were not made in 1961-1971, the alongshore (north-south) component of the current can be estimated from the density distribution calculated from the temperature and salinity measurements.”
There are cruise logs going back to 1999. The oldest states (but no mention of bucket):
SAMPLING PLAN:
1. Use ship’s intake continuously for Temperature, Salinity, Fluorescence
Data and quality control are here:
http://www-po.coas.oregonstate.edu/~poa/www-po/research/po/research/alm/
A history is here:
ceoas.oregonstate.edu/about/files/COAS_50thAnniversary.pdf
This is what I recall for 1970 for the then-new continuous measurement of three parameters in lieu of discrete samples using Nansen bottles. Both methods were used for overlap. Conductivity leads to salinity from which principal chemical constituents can be derived:
“OSU hydrographers begin using Geodyne CTD (conductivity, temperature, depth) instruments to measure temperature, salinity and depth continuously, in place of discrete bottle samples with reversing thermometers.”
Thanks for tracking that down, Neil. I’ll take a look.
w.
Willis: Oceanography cruises on board the “Yaquina”, ca. 1970 without going through my old transcripts. That was standard procedure then, bucket temperature matched in time to engine cooling intake temperature. I was a grad student. Presumably the data were collected and collated and might have made it into publication. I will check for links.
Thanks, Neil. Ah, the Yaquina, one of my favorite rivers, running up from Newport … but I digress. Let us know if you find links.
w.
Loved the images of referees calling penalties interspersed in the article. Good call, David Middleton.
The logic ref’s can be found here: http://imgur.com/gallery/xWs86
Stating the facts logically and scientifically
1)there is no greenhouse gas,
2)there is no greenhouse effect, except within a greenhouse,
3)all gases can cool, but none can warm (that which is warmer),
4) there is but one metric to be used in determining whether or not the earth is warming or cooling –
the difference between incoming and outgoing energy (radiation) as measured a top of atmosphere.
COOLING results when more energy leaves earth than enters.
While the choice of the word “greenhouse” is unfortunate…
1) So-called greenhouse gases are real.
2) The so-called greenhouse effect is real. Without it, the average surface temperature of the Earth would be about -18°C.
3) Correct. The greenhouse gases don’t actually warm anything. They retard cooling.
4) Correct. But that’s like saying that the subtrahend and minuend don’t matter and only the difference matters in a subtraction equation.
A greenhouse retards convective cooling. The so-called greenhouse effect retards radiative cooling.
Poor David,.. wrong still.
1. Radiative gases exist. Nothing to do with greenhouses
2. Its called the gravito-thermal effect
3. Radiative gases do not retard warming… they just provide another conduit in the convectively controlled troposphere
Radiative gases DO NOT retard convective cooling. Only H2O does that and only once it has already done its cooling job.
Poor Andy, still wrong.
So called greenhouse gasses absorb infrared photons and then convert that energy to heat via collisions with other gasses in the atmosphere.
2) The so-called greenhouse effect is real. Without it, the average surface temperature of the Earth would be about -18°C.
=============
the so called greenhouse effect does not exist in real greenhouses. greenhouses warm by limiting convection, not as a result fo GHG.
the average temperature of the earth is 15C. the difference between 15C and -18C is 33C.
the optical depth of the atmosphere is 5km. the lapse rate is 6.5 C/km. 5km x 6.5 C/km = 32.5 C
this much, much too close to be simply coincidental. this argues strongly that the lapse rate due to atmospheric circulation is responsible for what is mistakenly called GHG warming. below 5km the conversion of potential into kinetic energy warms the atmosphere. above 5km it cools the atmosphere.
ferdberple,
If the accumulated lapse rate was not equal to the difference in equivalent temperature between the surface and the planets emissions, something would be horribly wrong. By definition, this must be the case. The question is whether this indicates a causal relationship and if so, what is the cause and what is the consequence. For example, this could just be the consequence of the difference between surface emissions (temperature) and planet emissions which are a function of something else.
So called greenhouse gasses absorb infrared photons and then convert that energy to heat via collisions with other gasses in the atmosphere.
==============================
greenhouse gasses absorb energy from photons and from collisions with other molecules. they return this energy to other molecules via collisions, or they emit this energy as photons.
as such, energy absorbed collision with other molecules are indistinguishable from energy absorbed from photons. a collision with another molecule can simply be thought of as the absorption of a virtual photon.
similarly with radiation. A ghg molecule can release energy by emitting a photon or by collision with another molecule. the collision can be seen as the release of a virtual photon.
the only difference is that real photons can be emitted to space cooling the atmosphere, while virtual photons cannot be emitted to space and thus cannot cool the atmosphere.
David Middleton replied above with:
[ 1) So-called greenhouse gases are real.
2) The so-called greenhouse effect is real. Without it, the average surface temperature of the Earth would be about -18°C.]
This sounds like you have a way to measure the “greenhouse gas” property of gases within the Earth’s atmosphere. This would be the first I’ve heard of the ability to measure this “property”.
I greatly appreciate your contributions to this site, but I hope you’ll take a moment and elaborate on what we truly know about the alleged “greenhouse gas” property. Physical properties can be measured by definition, and so if there is no way of measuring it then there is no actual physical property. If you’re saying that it can be measured, then why aren’t we measuring it today? Why don’t we have charts measuring this effect in Denver and Miami from yesterday? What does the temperature curve look like in each of those locations after subtracting out the CO2 greenhouse effect? Can you show how this property behaves in the 95% CO2 atmosphere of Mars.
You cannot begin to derive a formula to produce an answer to my question(s). Are you saying that an atmosphere with .04% CO2 can hold more heat than the same atmosphere with N2 replacing all of the CO2 in equivalent mass?
I’d say that your -18°C claim is a function of the mass of the atmosphere, are you saying that an atmosphere’s ability to store heat is not a function of mass?
A couple of points,
1) Without the GHG effect the planet would be closer to 0C and not -18C. You seem to forget that reflection by ice and clouds (albedo) while not part of the GHG effect, is clearly a consequence of GHG’s, specifically water vapor. Without GHG’s the Earth albedo would be closer to the Moon and there would a lot more incident energy than we have now. While it is typical to focus on only the part of an effect that fits your position, doing so makes you look foolish.
2) GHG’s do not convert much of their absorbed energy into the kinetic energy of molecules in motion. If you examine the precise mechanism (collisional broadening) you will see that only tiny bits of this energy can be converted at a time and there is an equal probability that molecules will slow down a bit instead of speed up, thus no net conversion. The collision is accompanied with the release of a photon either a little more or less energetic than it would have been without the collision and the difference comes from or goes to the kinetic energy of translational motion.
It’s not a matter of how much heat the atmosphere can “hold” due to its mass. So-called greenhouse gases are transparent to most bandwidths of incoming solar radiation and “opaque” to several bandwidths of outgoing thermal radiation. All other factors held equal, an atmosphere with 0.04% CH4 would be considerably warmer than an atmosphere with 0.04% CO2.
So-called greenhouse gases retard (slow down) radiative cooling because they absorb a fraction of the outgoing thermal radiation that would otherwise have been quickly radiated away. The absorption bandwidths have been documented in every possible manner.
The so-called greenhouse effect has been directly measured…
What was observed? A ~20 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 correlated with a 0.2 W/m^2 increase in radiative forcing at the Earth’s surface.
Assuming a linear relationship of .01 W/m^2 per 1 ppmv CO2… A doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv will increase radiative forcing by 2.8 W/m^2. This is about 2/3 of the IPCC’s estimate.
The total warming since 1850 has been about 0.7°C. Over the same period, CO2 increased by about 120 ppmv (~1.2 W/m^2).
0.7°C ÷ 120 ppmv CO2 = 0.006°C/ppmv CO2
This means that a doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 can lead to a maximum warming of 1.68°C… less than half of the so-called consensus estimate.
Since my “back of the envelope” calculations assumed a linear, rather than logarithmic, relationship and that all of the warming since 1850 was GHG-driven, the actual climate sensitivity can be no more than half of my estimate… ~0.8°C per doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2.
This essentially means that the human impact on climate change is insignificant.
Whether or not the exact net effect on the Earth’s average surface temperature is +33 °C is certainly debatable. The choice of the word “greenhouse” to describe the gases and the effect is a poor one; although, there really isn’t a better simple word to use.
David,
“All other factors held equal, an atmosphere with 0.04% CH4 would be considerably warmer than an atmosphere with 0.04% CO2. ”
Not that it matters to your conclusions, but that statement is incorrect. CO2 has far more absorption bands in the relevant LWIR spectrum than CH4, so even at a maximum concentration, the transparent window arising from CH4 by itself would be significantly larger than that arising from CO2 alone.
We consider CH4 to be a more powerful GHG agent only because the same linear increase in concentration has a larger proportional effect, but even a larger fraction of something that’s already quite small is still quite small. As a result, I would lump cow farts into the same category as the hot air coming from the alarmists, relative to the effect they both have on the climate (although the later has a very large detrimental effect on the science).
Thank you kindly for your informative reply.
Why can’t we measure this property on Mars?
I remain skeptical that: CO2’s ability to “absorb a fraction of the outgoing thermal radiation that would otherwise have been quickly radiated away” results in warming of the atmosphere. This outgoing radiation is relentless and travels at the speed of light. So now you need to show how this fractionally reflected wave, directed back towards its source, finds a molecule that has a temperature small enough to accept the wave and incrementally increase it’s own temperature. But all those molecules back towards the source have already been heated to their ambient temperature by the constant waves from below, and would not incrementally increase in temperature.
Thomas,
“I remain skeptical that: CO2’s ability to “absorb a fraction of the outgoing thermal radiation that would otherwise have been quickly radiated away” results in warming of the atmosphere. ”
As you should be since this is not how the GHG effect works. The idea that GHG absorption is thermalized as heated O2/N2 which then heat the surface is complete BS. The GHG effect is purely radiative where some fraction of energy absorbed by atmospheric GHG’s is returned to the surface as photons and the remainder escapes the planet, also as photons. The fractions are based on geometric properties alone and that fraction is about 1/2. The photons returned to the surface are added to the photons coming from the Sun to replenish the energy emitted by the surface consequential to its temperature which rises accordingly. The O2/N2 in the atmosphere is then heated by convection with the surface.
In a nutshell its not this:
GHG absorption -> heated atmosphere -> heated surface
but this:
GHG absorption -> heated surface -> heated atmosphere
co2isnotevil,
Good point… And I’ve actually made the same point in the past when pointing out the relative insignificance of CH4. I should have compared CO2 to a non-GHG.
Thomas Homer,
We probably could measure it on Mars. It would just be insignificant. The problem is that the Martian atmosphere is too thin to retain much heat, with or without GHG’s. If the atmosphere was 95% N2 oxide instead of CO2, Mars would be even colder.
Oaaaaafrician political logic,
WHY? has New York City more light switches than the whole African continent ??? Would mentality be a factor ?
It’s about the picture of the guy with his head buried in the sand.
People think ostriches bury their heads in the sand. That’s a myth.
People have put their heads in the ground, to commit suicide, most famously at the Battle of Cannae.
Once again: these people will not admit the truth about “global warming” until ice sheets are spreading southward across Europe, Asia, and North America…and THEN they will pretend this would never have happened if not for CO2 emissions. The past 2.5 millions years of ice age will be conveniently ignored.
Every move the alt-left makes, everything they do more clearly defines who they are, how far into one-world socialism/communism they are, which further alienates them from the average American. That’s just about as stuck on stupid as you can get! I used to think it was a combination of too much Mary Jane, blind ideology, money grubbing, youth and selfishness. Now, after learning/seeing what they collectively have done (or not done) over the past few years AND what they have done and are doing since the election, to partially quote Napoleon: “In that case, let us wait (a few years); when the enemy is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him.”
Now we know why the LSM & the Left are so afraid of Trump! Obama did 90% of his AGW initiatives by Exec Order that Pres Trump can undo with the stroke of a pen! Means the gravey train will not only slow, it may go away completely! As an AGW Skeptic, I say “Great”!
Not only that, they will actually have to discuss and defend their science instead of insisting that it isn’t necessary because “the debate is over”. I hope Trump calls for national discussion of the real facts about climate change and exposes the real agenda behind the movement.
This is one of those things that has to be said and there is really no place for it.
Chris Mattews said that as he watched Obama being elected “he felt a tingle going up his leg”.
I am sure that as Chirs Mattews watched Trump being elected he felt a trickle going down his leg.
Eugene WR Gallun
Good one, Eugene.
“…human actions would be considered harmful unless proven otherwise.” (Restrepo et al., 1999)
Restrepo, V. R., P. M. Mace and F. M Serchuk. 1999. The precautionary approach: a new paradigm or business as usual? pp. 61-70, IN, Our Living Oceans, Report on the status of U. S. living marine resources. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/SPO.
The precautionary approach has been misused. , I think it started out when nothing could be proven to have an effect. So a logical method of experimentation turned into an unconstitutional “guilty into proven innocent.”
“…human actions would be considered harmful unless proven otherwise.” (Restrepo et al., 1999)
======================
the scientific method cannot “prove” something to be true. as such, the precautionary principle is based on a false conjecture.
That should be guilty until proven innocent. I guess it would get into it.
They seem like not a bad team.
the average household faces damages of almost $20 per month.
===========================
In Canada it is estimated that Trudeau’s carbon tax will cost $50 per month per household to try and prevent $20 per month in damages.
So, instead of being out of pocket $20 per month, we are likely to be out of pocket $70 per month. Because if there is one thing everyone can agree on, governments have a pretty solid track record when it comes to taking small problems and turning them into big problems.
It is pretty sucky having someone who was a “consultant” for the Kremlin as the prime candidate for National Security Advisor. As a real conservative, I resent such a choice. No real conservative abides by foreign influence within the inner sanctum.
I think you are assuming too much about General Flynn. Remember: Innocent until proven guilty. Flynn has ties in Turkey that may serve us very well in the future, too. There is no reason to think any of these relationships are nefarious.
A great article that says most of what I’ve thought is on the NY Post, entitled “Dear liberals: Start practicing the empathy you preach”.
http://nypost.com/2016/11/20/dear-liberals-start-practicing-the-empathy-you-preach/
overall theme – jobs matter. We are not going to kill jobs on some half baked theory. About time Washington got the message.
The CAGW crew is in disbelief, just like all of the left was when Hillary lost. In both cases, they totally bought their own BS, resulting in overconfidence in winning an election an overconfidence that the public was behind them on CAGW. It is a double loss for them & arguably marks the victory of the skeptical side of the argument. Hopefully it leads to a broader victory of the re-establishment of honest science!
Do “all jobs matter”, or only “black jobs matter” – oops sorry?
“RockyRoad on November 21, 2016 at 9:50 am
Anything Trump can do that will destroy the demented agenda Obama has imposed on the US is completely acceptable.”
If Trump can derail the the AGW gravy train and begin the collapse of the of the whole hoax, he will go down in history as one of the free world’s great heroes for which we will all be immensely grateful. A lot of hope around the world is resting on his shoulders.
I’d never heard this one. Roy wins the clisci meme hands down, no second place:
Well done, Dr. Roy!
w.
It’s one of Dr. Spencer’s best… Right up there with this one:
A little off topic, but maybe not:
“Got that? History students are not required in the course of their study — the end result being a degree in history— to actually take a (US) history class, which explains why so many young people have trouble understanding how Donald Trump could win the election by winning the Electoral College vote and losing the popular vote. They’ve never studied it.”
“…An American Council of Trustees and Alumni study — “No US History? How College History Departments Leave the United States out of the Major,” based on requirements and course offerings at 75 leading colleges and universities — found that “the overwhelming majority of America’s most prestigious institutions do not require even the students who major in history to take a single course on United States history or government.”
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/11/21/george-will-college-kids-really-are-uneducated/
The name of the US is “The United STATES of America”. The Senate was to give the STATES equal representation in Congress. The House of Representatives was to give all the CITIZENS equal representation in Congress.
The Electoral Collage was an attempt to give the States and the Citizens an equal voice in electing the President BOTH want.
(PS Bill Clinton won both of his election when most of the voters (57% in his first run) wanted somebody else. I didn’t hear many complaints then.)
When I went to Purdue, American history was required for graduation. Attendance was taken in recitation class. Out of 30 students only three participated in the discussions.
At the time I was serving full time in the navy. My day job was getting an engineering degree because the navy needed line officers who were understood engineering. I love history but I am not good at those kinds of tests.
Later I found out that only three students got an ‘A’. I happened to be uniform and when I ran into the professor. He said the worst part of his job was teaching to those who do not want to be there. One of the other class trouble makers was from the south and had a different view of American history.
I believe one of things that make America great is the diversity of the debate. It would be nice if some understood how our government works and a little about science.
Not sure what you meant by that but I work with someone, much younger than, that I love and respect. She was continuing her education, including a black history class.
Somehow the subject of “Black” versus “African-American” came up.
She told me that she learned that the preferred term is “African-American” rather than “Black” because some white news writer came up with the “Black”.
I was alive back then. I bit my tongue and didn’t say that I doubt if “The Black Panthers” chose that name because some white guy told them to.
What happened, happened. Its past. Beware those who would twist it for a present gain.
“Black” became preferred in the ’60s as the logical alternative to “white”, replacing “Negro” or “colored”, although now we have “people of color”.
My black GF in the ’80s said she thought “African-American” was for Buppies. She was happy to go by “black”. We laughed over the quaint but then polite and PC “Negro” on her Chicago birth certificate.
Chimp, when I was in business, I had some “African American” customers. The problem with the term is that it does not really fit Egyptians, Tunisians, Moroccans, or Boers as commonly used.
Coming nightmares for Green Internationale:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/21/marine_le_pen_under_trump_us_has_regained_image_as_an_organization_of_peace.html
Or back to the future:
So here is the question……if the U.N. really believes in the doom and gloom and the sea level rise, etc., then why are they pouring BILLIONS into renovating the UN headquarters which is only feet from the East River instead of moving to higher ground?
TomB, interesting article in the NY post. On another thread I posted a piece by Jonathan Pie. Lots of f’s and b’s in it, but basically saying the same. The left caused their own downfall by denigrating their opponents rather than trying to persuade them. To shut them up (think climate debate shutdown, or no right or centrist opinions on campus, safespace, manplanation etc.), rather than debating them.
In a recent article, the BBC correspondent in New York (one assumes a responsible position in an organisation that has a charter allegedly maintaining its freedom from bias) wrote that people who voted Trump were either white supremacists, KKK members, confederate flag-wavers, or ultra right because they visited Breitbart for news or opinion. Ha ha. Does that mean that the 53% of white women who voted Trump belong in those groups? And what about the 27% of hispanic women who voted Trump? Are they hispanic supremacists or associate members of the local white supremacy group?
Two other articles I recently saw were by women who mentioned they had worked years for a more inclusive tolerant society. Both went on to complain bitterly about, and denigrate Trump voters. Same issue. They were promoting an inclusive society, but only provided everyone agreed with them. It did not occur to them that in complaining about older white women they were actually being racist sexist and ageist.
Finally, that NY Post article talks about the left moving more left. That is exactly what happened in the UK. The leader of the Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn is way further left than his predecessors, but at the same time many think he has made Labour unelectable.
In Spain, there has been a move to go further left via Podemos – a populist left party. The more traditional left, the PSOE, has partly rejected that by agreeing to allow the minority right party, the PP, to form a government. In doing so, they had to eject a more left leader. So the swing to the left was partly stemmed.
Interesting times.
ps, great article, David Middleton (from one geologist to another)
Walter Mondale. Remember him? Rumour has it that he’s on Trump’s shortlist for Secretary of State. That sure bucks the trend of climate sceptical/wary candidates listed above. For God’s sake, Mr President Elect, spare humanity another knucklehead as SoS!
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/mitt-romney-climate-change-shift
Sorry. Typo. I meant Mitt Romney, not Mondale!
Mitt would be a very good Secretary of State… He speaks French and was once the governor of a foreign land (Massachusetts)… /SARC
Seriously, Gov. Romney would be a great addition to the cabinet and proof that Donald Trump really wants to form a united Republican government and “drain the swamp”… You can’t drain the swamp without people who understand the swamp and know where the drains are.
I worried about Romney and his pseudo conservative stances until I realized he has a track record of conforming to whatever his bosses, including the electorate, want him to say or do. So he might be good at implementing what Trump wants. I still don’t like him, and I voted for him in 12, but then I would have voted for my Chessy against Obama.
That would fall under “senior moment”, not a typo, bub. Right there with you, so don’t feel too embarrassed. Whatever room he’s in, Romney is the smartest guy in it. And he’s smooth, very smooth. He’d probably make a fine S. o’ S. just a question of is he ready to immerse himself in the chaotic, frenetic world of Trump / Bannon.
“Whatever room he’s in, Romney is the smartest guy in it.”
How smart is it to try to get Hillary Clinton elected president?
“Not sure what you meant by that but I …..”
In high school, I was a ‘trouble maker’. My inter city history teacher was about as racist as they came. It was the 60s. In college, I was an independent thinker.
In the navy on my first ship I was labeled as the kind of trouble maker that leads a mutiny in time of war. I asked my Engineering Officer if his wife would visit him in Leavenworth? I did not say ‘sir’ either. Fortunately for me this man was smart enough to figure out he was in serious trouble if I was treating him with such disrespect. He decided to listen to the messenger rather than shoot him.
In the context of Donald Trump, I have often been criticized in the work place and at home for not being politically correct. My response to ‘you could have said it nicer’ was ‘I did the first time’.
I suspect Trump got elected because many are tired of the PC culture that is blind to real injustice.
I missed that you were quoting me. ( https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/21/mother-jones-on-possible-trump-appointees-be-afraid/#comment-2348791 )
The best summation of the PC culture refers the “Coexist” bumper stickers they are so fond of. What they really mean is, “You have to coexist with me. I don’t have to coexist with you.”
Kit, have you always had problems communicating your thoughts to others?