"The Trump-Climate Freakout… 'I’m going to die from climate change!'"

Guest post by David Middleton

WARNING: This post is very sarcastic!

Greentards.PNG

by OREN CASS November 22, 2016 4:00 AM

He will reverse a policy that isn’t working anyway.

Given the emotional reactions that Donald Trump and climate change each trigger separately, they offer an especially combustible combination. Paul Krugman worries that Trump’s election “may have killed the planet.” Activist Bill McKibben calls Trump’s plan to reverse the Obama climate agenda by approving the Keystone XL pipeline and other fossil-fuel projects, repealing the Clean Power Plan, and withdrawing from the Paris agreement “the biggest, most against-the-odds, and most irrevocable bet any president has ever made about anything.” And let’s not forget “Zach,” the DNC staffer who reportedly stormed out of a post-election meeting upset that “I am going to die from climate change.”

[…]

— Oren Cass is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the forthcoming report, “The Costs of Climate Change Are Real — and Manageable.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442383/donald-trump-climate-change

Zach must be the poster child for “50 shades of green“…

[…]

Donna Brazile, the interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, was giving what one attendee described as “a rip-roaring speech” to about 150 employees, about the need to have hope for wins going forward, when a staffer identified only as Zach stood up with a question.

“Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?” he asked, according to two people in the room. “You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself.”

Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.

“You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”

Zach gathered his things and began to walk out. When Brazile called after him, asking where he was going, he told her to go outside and “tell people there” why she should be leading the party.

[…]

The Huff Puff

Let’s return to the NRO article to see what has poor Zach so terrified…

Just listen to President Obama. His administration developed a “Social Cost of Carbon” that attempts to quantify in economic terms the projected effects of climate change on everything from agriculture to public health to sea level, looking all the way out to the year 2100. So suppose President Trump not only reverses U.S. climate policy but ensures that the world permanently abandons efforts to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions. How much less prosperous than today does the Obama administration estimate we will be by century’s end?

The world will be at least five times wealthier. Zach may even live to see it.

The Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (DICE) model, developed by William Nordhaus at Yale University, which has the highest climate costs of the Obama administration’s three models, estimates that global GDP in 2100 without climate change would be $510 trillion. That’s 575 percent higher than in 2015. The cost of climate change, the model estimates, will amount to almost 4 percent of GDP in that year. But the remaining GDP of $490 trillion is still 550 percent larger than today. Without climate change, DICE assumes average annual growth of 2.27 percent. With climate change, that rate falls to 2.22 percent; at no point does climate change shave even one-tenth of one point off growth. Indeed, by 2103, the climate-change-afflicted world surpasses the prosperity of the not-warming 2100.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442383/donald-trump-climate-change

Setting aside the facts that the Social Cost of Carbon is 100% mythical and that neither 2.27% nor 2.22% growth are robust… 2% growth is basically treading water… We’re supposed to gleefully spend $44 trillion over the next couple of decades based on a statistically insignificant difference between two rolls of the DICE?

Well, the climate is certainly more important than money.  Poor Zach must be terrified that the Earth will turn into Venus under President Trump.  So, even though the economic benefits of CLIMATE ACTION NOW! are insignificant and mythical, the actual effect on the weather in the year 2100 will be significant… Right?

Even with U.S. “leadership,” the commitments made by other countries under the Paris agreement look almost identical to the paths those countries were on already. Thus the agreement’s impact is at best a few tenths of a degree Celsius. MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, for instance, projected 3.9°C of warming by 2100 without the Paris agreement and 3.7°C with it.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442383/donald-trump-climate-change

I’m not a CPA (I do pay one to do my taxes), but I’m going to go out on a limb here:  $44 trillion now is worth a Helluva lot more than a mythical 0.05% annual GDP boost and 0.2°C of averted warming by 2100… Particularly since a realistic “business as usual” model wouldn’t predict more than 2.0°C  of warming by 2100…

 

I built carbon emissions scenarios for two cases:

  1. Constant ratio of oil, gas & coal based on 2005-2014 averages (left).
  2. Decreasing oil, increasing gas and relatively stable coal, based on trends in Figure 3 (right).
RCP85_Mod25
Figure 5. RCP 8.5 might be “business as usual… On Venus! The graph on the left uses a constant ratio of oil, gas and coal.  The graph on the right displaces oil with gas.

Based on a real world “business as usual” emissions scenario, with natural gas displacing oil at its current pace and no carbon tax, I come up with a CO2 right about inline with RCP 6.0, “a mitigation scenario, meaning it includes explicit steps to combat greenhouse gas emissions (in this case, through a carbon tax)“.

RCP85_Mod26
Figure 6. QED

Then I took my real world “business as usual” relative concentration pathway and applied three reasonable climate sensitivities to it: 0.5, 1.5 and 2.5 °C per doubling of atmospheric CO2, starting at 280 ppmv (TCR 0.5, TCR 1.5 and TCR 2.5).  HadCRUT4, referenced to 1850-1879 is clearly tracking very close to TCR 1.5…

RCP85_Mod27
Figure 7: A real world (this world, not Venus) “business as usual” scenario would barely nudge the dreaded 2 °C limit by the year 2100… Assuming that all of the warming since 1850 is due to greenhouse forcing… Which it isn’t.

Since it is generally assumed (by competent scientists) that at least half of the warming since 1850 was natural, the actual climate sensitivity would have to be significantly lower than 1.5 °C per doubling.  Therefore, RCP 8.5 should never be described as “business as usual,” “expected” or a “baseline case.”  Since its assumptions are mind mindbogglingly unrealistic, it shouldn’t be used in any serious publication.  It is bad science fiction.

RCP 8.5, Part Deux: “The stuff nightmares are made from.”

Featured Image Source

0 0 votes
Article Rating
132 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 22, 2016 1:40 pm

According to The Guardian’s latest news Trump is showing signs of flip flopping.

Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 2:10 pm

Trump was actually speaking to the NYT. Here is their report:
“President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Tuesday that he would “keep an open mind” about whether to pull the United States out of a landmark multinational agreement on climate change.
During his presidential campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly said he would withdraw from the Paris climate accord. But on Tuesday, he said, “I’m looking at it very closely. I have an open mind to it.”
Mr. Trump’s comments came at an on-the-record lunch with the publisher, editors and reporters of The New York Times”

He also said he wasn’t going to try to prosecute Hillary.

Chimp
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 2:15 pm

Maybe Trump is trying to lull Obama into not pardoning the Clinton organized crime family. Or the Clintons might have dirt on Trump that they couldn’t use during the election since it involves them.
The truth will out.

Marcus
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 2:31 pm

Trump is simply buying time until he ACTUALLY takes power..

commieBob
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 2:34 pm

Chimp November 22, 2016 at 2:15 pm
Maybe Trump is trying to lull Obama into not pardoning the Clinton organized crime family.

Obama can’t pardon the Clintons because,

A pardon is a government decision to allow a person who has been convicted of a crime, to be free and absolved of that conviction, as if never convicted link

and they’ve never been convicted in a court of law. Obama can’t just give them a ‘Get out of jail free’ card. It doesn’t exist in the constitution.

Janice Moore
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 2:42 pm

1. There are other U.S. government agencies/officials with power to pr0$secute yet-to-be-convicted con HC.
THIS is how that rotter will be put in pri$0n.
2. Negative publicity is, even so, publicity. Best to not give that generous gift to the Clinton R@cket.
3. What does any narcissistic, power-hungry, attention-seeking politician hate most? Being ignored.
***************
Re: weird spellings above, my earlier comment (about 5 minutes after this thread began) disappeared. I tested all the “iffy” words, and all tested just fine on “Test.” So, having no idea what the problem was, I am being super careful!

Janice Moore
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 2:43 pm

Re: … we wouldn’t want to see this… (Dave M.) — Why not??

MarkW
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 2:51 pm

Chimp, Trump declared this morning that he’s not going to prosecute Clinton. So there’s no need for Obama to pardon her.

TA
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 2:57 pm

“He also said he wasn’t going to try to prosecute Hillary.”
I can see where this would be a benefit to Trump. He will save himself a whole lot of wasted time defending himself over the issue, and will deflect a lot of Leftist vitriol by doing so.
I don’t think this let’s Hillary off the hook completely though. The FBI has an ongoing investigation into Hillary’s Foundation, and Comey might indict her just to make up for not indicting her previously.
And Congress is not through investigating the Hillary State Department. There are still active State Department employees who took part in lying to Congress and obstructing their investigation, so this is not over yet.

Janice Moore
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 3:05 pm

Sorry, Dave. I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that you didn’t want to see the lovebirds separated, thus, that would be a reason to not prosecute HC.
Re: “hall pass,” heh. “What difference at this point does it make would it make?” lolololol

James in Philly
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 3:06 pm

@commiebob, your Wikipedia link included a more detailed discussion of the law in the United States. It said there that the power of pardon included “amnesty” which is “the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted.”
This would explain President Ford’s pardon of Nixon who was never indicted or convicted. If Obama takes action with respect to Clinton, he would presumably be exercising the same power.

Janice Moore
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 3:06 pm

What difference at this point does it make?.

Janice Moore
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 3:08 pm

Aaaargh! Not quick enough. My quote correction is to my own comment addressed to Dave above.
To make my position perfectly clear: H. R. Clinton is a de facto felon who remains at large and should NOT be pardoned — by anyone.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 3:21 pm

We’ll have to wait to see whom O’bama pardons, but assuming no blanket pardons:
The first special prosecutor should be assigned to Lois Lerner, the IRS lady that took the Fifth Amendment before a Congressional committee. 20 years in the slammer, at the minimum. Every subordinate of hers who took part in the political vendetta against certain non-profit groups should also be given the max. The IRS has been granted incredible power, so abuse of that power must be punished so severely that every IRA employee should be scared witless of even appearing to show favoritism.
On to Hillary. The ‘Bamster should pardon her so that Trump doesn’t have to mess with it all. Howsomever, prosecutors should nail every subordinate participating in any illegal activity. Since she would be pardoned, Hillary would have to testify (truthfully, too) in all those cases. That would be entertaining, watching her turn on her sycophants.
If Trump needs any more free advice, he shouldn’t hesitate to call. 🙂

commieBob
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 3:37 pm

David Middleton November 22, 2016 at 2:44 pm
Ford pardoned Nixon and he hadn’t been charged with any crimes.

I had forgotten. It’s a bit mind boggling. All the links I can find say that a pardon applies to a conviction yet here’s a link that states the foregoing but uses Nixon’s pardon as an example.

Carter pardoned all Vietnam draft dodgers irrespective of whether or not they had been convicted or even formally charged.

Here’s the proclamation Folks describe it as an amnesty but the proclamation uses the word pardon.

Obama can pardon the Clintons.

Yep, sounds like that’s the case. My head hurts. 🙂

Gunga Din
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 4:31 pm

David Middleton November 22, 2016 at 2:44 pm
Ford pardoned Nixon and he hadn’t been charged with any crimes. Carter pardoned all Vietnam draft dodgers irrespective of whether or not they had been convicted or even formally charged. Obama can pardon the Clintons.

True. But a Presidential pardon just means they can’t be prosecuted for what they were pardoned. It does not mean they are not still criminals.
PS How specific does a “pardon” need to be? Is it a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card for anything or does the “anything” need to be specified?
Hypothetical: If she knows Obama is going to pardon her tomorrow, could she whack off Bill’s willy tonight…with impunity? Or would Obama have to list what she is being pardoned of?

Mark T
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 4:42 pm

Dave Middleton: given that the US itself is not a signatory to the Paris agreement, there’s no need to withdraw from it. Trump can simply executive order away and presumed commitment.
W r.t pardons: the Constitution is the only authority that really needs to be consulted. The only written limitations are that there must have been an actual crime committed (amnesty does not cover future crimes), and cases of impeachment are exempt. Federal crimes and impeachments, of course, are all the power covers. There seems to be a pretty strong consensus that a POTUS cannot pardon himself, either, though even if he could, he would still be unable to dodge impeachment. This has never been tested.

South River Independent
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 5:15 pm

Trump has repeatedly said that he would not tell his opponents what he would do ahead of time.

catweazle666
Reply to  Mario Martini
November 22, 2016 1:52 pm

The Guardian…
Right…

Ron
Reply to  Mario Martini
November 22, 2016 1:55 pm

Isn’t the Guardian the same group that predicted a Hillary win?

Reply to  Mario Martini
November 22, 2016 2:23 pm

Another take-away from the meeting:

“I think there is some connectivity” between humans and climate change, Trump says.

Marcus
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 22, 2016 2:34 pm

..Geeze, you get more and more desperate everyday…Most non-alarmists agree that Human land changes, like building cities, tearing down forests etc…have a small affect on the local climate but he said nothing about CO2 !

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 22, 2016 2:53 pm

Nick, so does everybody else.
The question is 1) How much? 2) Is that enough to matter?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 22, 2016 3:07 pm

I think anyone, including so-called deniers would grant you that humans have contributed some. The unknown factor is how much, but probably miniscule. There definitely is nothing to be alarmed about.

charles nelson
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 22, 2016 5:08 pm

UHI, springs to mind immediately but soot and sulphur dioxide too….deforestation, change of land use and let’s not forget actual tampering with data.
Nope, humans definitely have an impact on the climate, but the 1/25 part of ONE percent of the atmosphere which is CO2 doesn’t! See?

South River Independent
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 5:27 pm

Well, believing in redemption for everyone, even the revolting Clintons, perhaps they can make their foundation live up to its promise to benefit real people.

Janice Moore
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 6:28 pm

South (and Dave M. a bit, too): Redemption is done by God alone. Justice (and here, there is NO cause for mercy — none) is the job of the justice system. If it is not allowed to work as it ought to in a given case, it undermines the whole thing. There is no justification for excusing her criminal and national security endangering/treasonous acts. You would give the Clintons a special status that no other American citizen has. No one, not Richard N1xon, not Bernie M@d0ff, not even the Clintons,
is above
the law.
The Clinton Rackateering Syndicate was dealt a blow, but, it has not been defanged. You underestimate their (and their followers’) drive and influence. So WHAT if this evi1 enterprise has done (or might do) some good — that’s what many cults do! This is no time to back off. We (not Trump, but those already empowered to prosecute her) must finish the job. No settlement. UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER is the only acceptable resolution to their years of betrayal and deceit.
I, for one, will NOT forget:
“We’ll get those people who made that video tape.”

Chris in Hervey Bay
Reply to  Mario Martini
November 22, 2016 5:44 pm

Maybe you should all go and read the article at the Conservative Tree House.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/11/22/new-york-times-seems-to-utilize-professional-alinsky-rule-division-isolation-and-marginalization/#more-124887
“Put another way, if you are in opposition to now President-Elect Trump, the target for your approach is to conquer by dividing that base of support(ers).
Enter the Alinsky professional model with Trump’s visit and today’s New York Times headline: “Donald Trump Seems to Retreat on Some Promises“.”

markl
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay
November 22, 2016 6:03 pm

+1 People need to understand what the MSM is up to when it prints/voices misinformation to sway the reader. Divide and conquer all the way. Anything other than a complete direct quote should be suspect.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Mario Martini
November 22, 2016 7:28 pm

You guys don’t get it. Trump is not flipflopping. What he is doing is refusing to toss the bias main stream media any red meat during his transition period. It like dealing with cattle. You keep them calm until the hammer comes down and then they are steak.
In a way its rather cruel — raising the left’s hopes up — only to dash them again later on. Snicker. Snicker.
Eugene WR Gallun

markl
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
November 22, 2016 8:22 pm

I agree and hope we’re right.

Hot under the collar
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
November 23, 2016 1:26 am

Too funny! But not as funny as:
“You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”
I thought it was a line from a comedy sketch. This guy needs some professional help! It’s like some alarmist death cult OCD, they just can’t stop themselves from panicking and thinking the world is going to end due to ‘climate change’, how ridiculous!!!

Johna Till Johnson
Reply to  Mario Martini
November 22, 2016 7:50 pm

“I will keep an open mind” is what people say when the advantages of appearing convince-able outweigh the advantages of making a firm statement.
Right now Trump knows he’s won the hearts and minds of believers. He’s now doing a mop-up sweep to convince the folks who despise him that he’s reasonable and not insane. In that context, he has nothing to lose by “keeping an open mind” (or rather, saying he will).
Time will pass, he will do what he always intended to do, and he will arrive at: “I kept my mind open… and was ultimately convinced by the facts.” Which, surprisingly enough, will be the same point of view he held at the beginning.
TL;DR: don’t worry, he’s not flip flopping.

SteveC
November 22, 2016 1:41 pm

Once again… this time I promise…. this time for sure…. this time is the last time…. IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT! Look! There’s a chicken!

RHS
Reply to  SteveC
November 22, 2016 2:33 pm

Oh, squirrel!

ferdberple
November 22, 2016 2:10 pm

The UN and IPCC both agree that warming less than about 1.8C is net beneficial. It is only warming above 1.8C that is harmful. We will not see 1.8C warming until 2100 or so.
Quite simply, the accumulated benefits of slight warming today far exceed the future costs of extreme warming in the future up until 2250, because money today is worth more than future money.
As a result it makes no sense economically to spend money today to try and prevent future warming. Better to spend money today to make money, to pay for future warming.

MarkW
Reply to  ferdberple
November 22, 2016 2:55 pm

A couple of years ago, it was 2C of warming before it became harmful. As the science keeps lowering the climate sensitivity to CO2, they have to keep lowering the danger point in order to maintain some relevance.

Newminster
Reply to  MarkW
November 22, 2016 3:25 pm

I’m still waiting for a definitive answer to the question “2° increase as from when?”
But then I have been waiting for over 15 years for empirical evidence that increased CO2 levels result in increased temperatures and not, as the ice cores tell us, the other way round.
I live in hope.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  ferdberple
November 22, 2016 3:01 pm

It does not matter what number the UN and IPCC agree on. There is no science to the number 1.8 deg C for runaway warming. It was pulled out of thin air and every pseudo-scientist and politician is quoting it.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
November 22, 2016 11:59 pm

1.8°C is a P.O.O.M.A. number. P.O.O.M.A. stands for “Preliminary Order of Magnitude Approximation.” Really.

tom s
Reply to  ferdberple
November 22, 2016 4:29 pm

I want my warming. I like my warming. But I’m afraid mother nature will limit how much I get. She always has.

PiperPaul
Reply to  tom s
November 22, 2016 4:48 pm

I want my warming. I like my warming.
Here, hold my Samsung cell phone.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  ferdberple
November 22, 2016 7:58 pm

ferderple —
The idea that warming less than 1.8C is net beneficial but warming greater than 1.8C is harmful is just bullshiit. Rising temperatures have benefited mankind in the past, currently do so in the present and will continue to do so in the future.
Though all good things must come to an end let us hope that temperatures continue to rise for many
hundred more years — but just maybe temperature has peaked now.and we are headed for declining world temperatures. Let us hope not.
Eugene WR Gallun

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
November 23, 2016 10:47 am

Yes, and in particular when the warming is generally speaking confined to the coldest and driest air masses, and during the night. The notion that “CO2 induced warming,” if it existed to any measurable degree (no pun intended), is going to mean skyrocketing high temperatures is also bullshiit. “Averages” conceal a lot more about how inconsequential any supposed “warming” really is.
If humans experience anything “catastrophic” that is related to “climate change,” it will be from cooling temperatures, not warming temperatures. And we are far more likely to be unprepared for such a catastrophe if we don’t see it coming because our so-called “climate scientists” are still chasing their tails about CO2 emissions instead of the REAL climate drivers.

ngard2016
November 22, 2016 2:23 pm

I think everyone should read Lomborg’s peer reviewed study about the COP 21 Paris CON. He’s used the same software that is used by the IPCC and everyone should understand that wasting endless trillions $ by 2100 will make no measurable difference to temp at all. Even James Hansen called Paris COP 21 just BS and fra-d. He also said that a belief in solar and wind energy is akin to believing in the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny. IOW it is just one big fairy tale. Here’s a summary of Lomborg’s study.
http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises
Amazingly even the US govt’s 2016 EIA report tells us that co2 emissions will increase by 34% by 2040, mainly because of China, India and the developing nations. Just a pity that Obama didn’t read his own report before he opened his mouth. Here’s part of that report and a very interesting graph.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm

Bubba Cow
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 3:19 pm

Well, I’ve used up my five free (and so special) stories from WaPo until I get out of jail, so paywalled for me.
But, BIG graphs and nice, too.

tom s
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 4:32 pm

Bubba cow….hint, clear your cookies. 😉

markl
Reply to  ngard2016
November 22, 2016 3:09 pm

“With no international climate policies at all, it is probable that we would see a temperature rise of perhaps 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century” according to Lomborg. Probable? Lomborg said that?

November 22, 2016 2:26 pm

If Trump is going to evaluate green programs on the basis of cost/benefit, what exactly the hell is left? Even if he was quoted correctly, which I doubt, what real change in position was there?

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  David Middleton
November 23, 2016 12:14 am

“mist of it should at least break even”
“Mist” is the German word for dung, which accurately describes Ivanpah and a lot of other ‘unreliables.’

November 22, 2016 2:28 pm

Reuters is quoting N.Y Times reporter:
On Tuesday, Trump told the Times he thinks there is “some connectivity” between human activity and climate change, reporter Mike Grynbaum tweeted. “It depends on how much,” the reporter quoted Trump as saying.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-idUKKBN13H1NT?il=0

arthur4563
November 22, 2016 2:28 pm

I’m astoundedat how utterly ignorant these climate morons are about future technology. Do they really think that Trump can prevent the emergence of electric cars? Don’t these people realize that the other countries in the world do not set their agenda based on what a U.S. President says?
They seem to think that Trump was elected President of the World. I also can’t understand why in the world they are campaigning for grid-unready wind and solar when molten salt reactors are close at hand and would not only be agreable to all concerned, but would become universal solely on the basis of their very superior economics. These people live (or want to live) in a bubble, as has often been pointed out. Their ignorance can only be explained by assuming they really don’t care much about the future, only that they are seen as “leading us towards the light.” It’s an ego trip.

MarkW
Reply to  David Middleton
November 22, 2016 2:56 pm

Which will effectively prevent any of that.

William Astley
November 22, 2016 2:35 pm

The nightmare for the cult of CAGW comes in two parts:
1. Trump wins the presidential election. Trump understands the Paris climate ‘agreement’, is a recipe (written by China) to enable China to win the economic competition/war with the US. Trump will need to cut waste to enable money to be spent on infrastructure. There is no surplus public money to spend on green scams that do not work.
Trump understands the science does not support CAGW. If one looks deeper the observations do not even support AGW.
2. The planet cools. How the heck will the cult spin a cooling planet? Come on man. The sun is now spotless, we are two to three years from the solar minimum.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.11.21.2016.gif

Darrell Demick
Reply to  William Astley
November 22, 2016 3:01 pm

Very well stated, Mr. Astley!

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  William Astley
November 23, 2016 12:26 am

“How the heck will the cult spin a cooling planet?”
It’s not hard. The Manure Stream Media will refuse to print the drop in temperatures. They will quote only Lysenkoists. Social media sites will label skeptical sources “fake news sites” and ban them. Google algorithms will force skeptical sites to the bottom of every search, The Internerd will be controlled by the UN, and all skeptical blogs will disappear. In other words, they’ll just keep doing what they’re doing.

Tom O
November 22, 2016 2:36 pm

“I’m going to die from climate change. It’s going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”
What is truly sad is that the propaganda and “non-education” system has managed to plant such terrible beliefs in a person’s mind. The true cost of “climate crisis” has far acceded my worst fears when people are brainwashed into such incredible beliefs. Move over Satan, we have far worse people living on this planet than you.
People who can take a malleable mind and create that sort of belief set are far worse than the worst people in history that I have ever read about. How do you bring a mind so badly damaged back to reality?

Reply to  Tom O
November 22, 2016 2:54 pm

“It’s going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”
Another item from Trump’s NYT interview:
‘ Returning to the subject of The New York Times, Mr. Trump admitted to being a loyal reader. “I do read it,” he said. “Unfortunately. I’d live about 20 years longer if I didn’t.”’
You have to watch the punctuation.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 22, 2016 3:34 pm

I guess, from a man of seventy, 40 would sound like an exaggeration.

Mike McMillan
November 22, 2016 2:47 pm

Zach, we’ll miss you.

Janice Moore
November 22, 2016 2:49 pm

Second attempt at this one:
Great stuff (as usual!), Dave M.!
Suggested change:
WARNING: This post is very sarcastic! contains some sarcasm.
You were straight as an arrow, right-on-the-money most of the time above.

ngard2016
November 22, 2016 2:50 pm

China and India are forging ahead with new nuclear power technology and many new plants will be built over the next 30 years. So why doesn’t Trump back up James Hansen’s call for a switch to more new nukes for the USA as well?
It would split the Greens and Democrats down the middle and at least give the US reliable base load power for the future. Of course this still won’t make any measurable difference to co2 levels or temp etc by 2100 at all. See Dr John Christy’s evidence. before the Senate.

tabnumlock
November 22, 2016 2:55 pm

Whatever the “price of global warming” is, I think we should pay it. I hate cold weather.

Bill Illis
November 22, 2016 3:04 pm

The solution to climate change is right there for all to see.
Cut-off the money and fix the temperature record.
Stick to the plan despite all the righteous indignation and protests that will occur. These are not going away regardless of what you do as long as there is money left. Once they run out of money, the protesting will stop and the climate scientists will move on to other jobs (they must be getting sick of the lack of integrity foisted on them anyway).

TA
November 22, 2016 3:05 pm

Trump is going to have to deal with a huge controversy (marches in the streets, people threatening suicide) just as soon as he announces his plans about Climate Change, so he might just delay doing this until he has the rest of his government formed and in place, before blowing up the national and international climate alarmist community by announcing he is not going along with wasting American taxpayers dollars on the Climate Change Boondoogle.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  TA
November 22, 2016 3:23 pm

they can go to sanctuary cities and campuses for safe spaces …

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Bubba Cow
November 22, 2016 3:44 pm

Chicago would be a good place for them. Strict gun laws so no worries there.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Bubba Cow
November 22, 2016 3:55 pm
Reply to  Bubba Cow
November 22, 2016 5:31 pm

Chris – We don’t want any more leftist/phony-enviro/watermelons in Canada – we already have far too many.
Colonel Saunders already has a Chicken Bucket made especially for them – it’s the Red-Green Bucket – nothing but left-wings and A$$holes.

Scottish Sceptic
November 22, 2016 3:14 pm

Am I detecting a bit of an “end of term” cheerfulness amongst the regular commenters here? Anyone would think you’ve just had a sceptic voted in as president.

Harry Passfield
November 22, 2016 3:14 pm

Sarcasm or no, I really worry now that DT is going to back-pedal on his promise to bring down the AGW scam. The greens will be hitting him as hard as possible. I hope he has the resilience and strength of purpose to resist them and carry out his promises – but HRC’s ‘get out of jail (Trump) card’ sends a worrying signal.

November 22, 2016 3:44 pm

I was researching some info about biospheric oxygen levels. Seems that some are concerned that burning fossil fuels depletes atmospheric and ocean oxygen levels as well as producing CO2, with dire (What other kinds are there?) consequences.
I found a blog comment by some unemployed rock musician who had bothered some “experts” with his uninformed questions, found the atmospheric oxygen concentration as 20% in Wiki, some vague mutterings from OSHA about 19.5%, the rate of depletion over 261 years, and concluded the end is eminent. WE’RE ALL GOING TO DDDIIIEEE!!!!! And soon, too.
One of the commenters noted that at the rate he mentioned it would be several thousand years before it makes a real difference.
The concentration of oxygen at sea level is 20%. In mile high Denver it’s 17%. On top of Pikes Peak it’s 12%. People work and live out here & up there every day. Hikers make the top of Colorado’s fourteeners every day without turning comatose at the top. Mt Everest, 5%. (You will die.) Species adapt.
This whole climate change kerfuffle would be more peacefully resolved if there weren’t a bunch of know-it-all, blow-hard, wannabe amateurs with no formal training in physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, algebra, statistics etc. and no real-life experience in application of same talking out their butts!

R. Shearer
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 22, 2016 5:08 pm

The concentration is independent of altitude, it is the pressure that is lower at higher elevations. So, the volume of oxygen in each breath is lower.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  R. Shearer
November 23, 2016 10:10 am

“The concentration is independent of altitude,”
I question that. The partial pressure of each gas is the hypothetical pressure of that gas if it alone occupied the volume of the mixture at the same temperature. The total pressure of an ideal gas mixture is the sum of the partial pressures of each individual gas in the mixture. Since oxygen molecules are heavier than Nitrogen molecules, the partial pressure of oxygen should fall slightly faster than the partial pressure of nitrogen.

JC
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 22, 2016 5:16 pm

Actually the air is 20% oxygen at any altitude. The effective % varies with air pressure. Just a nit to pick.

Reply to  JC
December 4, 2016 3:12 pm

Exactly right. Gravitational fractionation doesn’t happen in the atmosphere, until you get to the top, where the faster moving ‘lighter’ components can reach escape velocity. On the other hand, the Earth Is still scooping up stuff in its orbit. What can happen is local chemical reactions that are sources or sinks. The absolute amount (number of atoms/molecules per unit volume) decline with altitude but the relative fraction doesn’t.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 22, 2016 7:20 pm

Nicholas:
You have put your finger right on the problem. We have too many “social scientists”, Political “Science” grads and societal “Architects” without any real “Climate” skills just parroting the leftist MSM. The school system no considers many of the things you mentioned “TOO HARD” for children in middle school and even high school. In the 50’s, we were taught those things starting in grade school. Although the sink or swim attitude was a little harsh, people did learn to cooperate and help one another through the tough climbs. Making everything homogeneously flat doesn’t build character or a good learning base.
This is a serious problem in our society today. It is hard to discuss climate/weather with folks who simply defer to “authority” and have no understanding of the actual science because they have no training in the issues you commented on so worth repeating:

“This whole climate change kerfuffle would be more peacefully resolved if there weren’t a bunch of know-it-all, blow-hard, wannabe amateurs with no formal training in physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, algebra, statistics etc. and no real-life experience in application of same talking out their butts!”

brians356
November 22, 2016 3:48 pm

I’ll take a flip-flopping Trump over a back-flipping Hillary ten times over. Sure, he’ll agree to any measures that do not effect the bottom line. Why not? Free is free. Lip service is cheap. Meanwhile, look who will be whispering in his ear: CAGW deniers (yeah, I said it) all. This election has set “climate control” back decades, if not indefinitely. And thank God for that. Any young person who has been brainwashed to believe climate change will take 40 years off his life is too mentally and emotionally inferior to ever become influential as an adult. The “experts” who today are influential know in their hearts CAGW is a scam, designed to usurp power and redistribute wealth, and are willful perpetrators, not fearful victims.

Titan28
November 22, 2016 3:48 pm

I hope Trump sticks to his guns on climate change. His stepping over to the NYTimes for an interview puzzles me. Why do it? Is he going on one of those Obama charm offenses? I’d be happier if he just wrote the Times off. I’m glad he won and all that. But some of the reservations (in this particular case his pathological need for attention) I had about him as a candidate, somewhat mollified by his so far cabinet choices, came again to the fore with this interview. He said something dumb about the electoral college; I wonder if he even understands the concept of Federalism. And he sure did sound squishy on the climate issue. He should stay off Twitter and stop badgering stupid actors and not waver! Stay the course! A goodly number of voters will be mighty miffed if he doesn’t stop the climate gravy train.

Reply to  Titan28
November 22, 2016 4:41 pm

Yes he now says he’ll take another look at man made climate change. I’m afraid he is going to back off on a lot of what he promised in his Gettysburg speech – the 1st 100 days, goals…to bad if he does. Well, maybe he will back off on the tariff thing (similar to Smoot – Hawley which helped cause the Great Depression)…

Rhoda R
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 22, 2016 6:48 pm

Wait until he actually says something definitive. Remember, one of the Alinsky tactics is to divide and conquer and what better way than to imply more into a vague statement than is really there.

Reply to  Titan28
November 22, 2016 5:04 pm

Sir, the man is likely not an ideologue. I think we take what we can get from him as a pragmatic thinker, hopefully extending to him refraining from bowing to Leftists utilizing Alinksy-eske tactics. A conservative, however, if that’s what you’re looking for, he is most certainly not. Or so it would appear to me.

November 22, 2016 4:38 pm

There is no great place to ask this question, so I’ll place it here.
There have been several articles over the past two days about the “record low sea ice”. The numbers and descriptions look like a math error (as though they changed how to calculate sea ice over the past year.)
What’s the truth to this one?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113493-global-sea-ice-has-reached-a-record-low-should-we-be-worried/

Pop Piasa
Reply to  lorcanbonda
November 22, 2016 7:17 pm

Please watch the free daily and weekly summaries at http://www.weatherbell.com to get some perspective on what is happening in global weather. Sea ice is low for this time of year indeed, but has not been at record lows all summer. Meanwhile Tokyo is seeing snow with areas of middle-latitude Asia and east Baltic regions unusually frigid. All this has analogous historical precedent before the satellite era and was predicted for the most part by weatherbell while the El Nino was in progress, based upon the warm waters of the north Pacific “blob” and the warm pulse through the N. Atlantic into the Arctic sea. Warm at high latitudes and cold at middle latitudes is not from climate change. it is from weather patterns.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Pop Piasa
November 22, 2016 7:19 pm

At Weatherbell, click on ‘Premium’ and the free summaries will appear.

TA
Reply to  Pop Piasa
November 22, 2016 8:58 pm

I watched a tv program on the Science channel a few minutes ago and they talked about the “Blob” and I was fully expecting to hear them attribute it to CAGW, but no!, they attributed it to a persistent high pressure system, which El Nino blew away. Bravo! Of course, what else could they conclude, given the facts, but you never know on the Science channel these days.

November 22, 2016 5:08 pm

Lorcanbonda
no truth to article.
Go to climate4yougraph and look at the composite sea ice graphs. Sea ice doing what it has done for decades. Also DMI and NSIDC.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 22, 2016 6:48 pm

The numbers from the New Science article look wrong to me, but the overall trend is consistent with that is published in Climate4you. Both the Arctic Sea Extant anomaly and the Antarctic sea ice extant anomaly are at record lows. The Arctic is well below normal while the Antarctic is below the longterm trendline.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SeaIceNHandSHlastMonthSince1979_OCTOBER.gif
What looks odd to me about the data is that there is a dramatic shift at the end of August/beginning of September in both the Antarctic and Arctic sea ice extent data. This sort of shift always makes me question whether there is a change in the way the data is gathered or adjusted.

catweazle666
Reply to  lorcanbonda
November 22, 2016 7:05 pm

“This sort of shift always makes me question whether there is a change in the way the data is gathered or adjusted.”
Yep.

Reply to  lorcanbonda
November 22, 2016 9:29 pm

I don’t know how to paste objects so I’ll just give directions. If you go further down the page where you found your graphs there is a graph with three traces: total sea ice, arctic sea ice, and Antarctic sea ice. Copy/paste into word or power point and draw horizontal lines. It’s pretty obvious that the current minimum is not the most minimum, 2012 and 2007 are more minimum. Yes, it’s currently below average, so what. And consider the enormous swings from min to max. 5% variation from average is nothing. The earth is approaching perihelion, 1/4/17, which means a hot peak in the solar non-constant. And of course Antarctica is currently near it’s max, not min, extent. I don’t know what the variation is between all of the mins but it appears relatively small.

Reply to  lorcanbonda
November 22, 2016 10:03 pm

I had seen this graph. The October 2016 entry is the lowest. It is lower than 2007 and 2012. It makes the same basic point, but I thought the other two showed it better. It’s still not the magnitude of the graph in New Science, but it shows a record of low Sea Ice.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20NHandSHandTOTALiceExtension12monthRunningAverage.gif

Reply to  lorcanbonda
November 22, 2016 10:14 pm

One popular way to exaggerate a graph and make a big impression is to use a severely truncated scale. Expand the scale on the blue/red NH/SH plot to, say, 0 to 20 and those steep trends will look almost flat and not nearly so dire.

Reply to  lorcanbonda
November 23, 2016 5:30 am

I’m aware of the ways to exaggerate a graph. These graphs are from the Climate4you site. That still doesn’t explain the shift at the end of August.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 23, 2016 8:20 am

The null hypothesis is natural variation and no need for an explanation. Stuff happens. Burden of proof is on those who think not.

Derek Colman
November 22, 2016 5:26 pm

I understand that psychologists are beginning to recognise a clear symptom of climate anxiety. Apparently it is similar to other unreasonable anxieties, and manifests as a fear of dying from climate change. I think I recognise it in some of the replies I get to my posts on forums. While most are just normal arguments, a number of them display a sense of panic in the individual who thinks my selfish attitude (their description) is going to destroy the planet and them with it.

catweazle666
Reply to  Derek Colman
November 22, 2016 5:53 pm

“I understand that psychologists are beginning to recognise a clear symptom of climate anxiety. Apparently it is similar to other unreasonable anxieties, and manifests as a fear of dying from climate change.”
Oh, I know all about that!
I’m really, really worried that the glaciers are going to return and I’m going to freeze to death!

Rhoda R
Reply to  catweazle666
November 22, 2016 6:50 pm

Given the way my house feels tonight, I worry along with you.

Choey
Reply to  catweazle666
November 22, 2016 10:58 pm

They are going to return. It’s just a matter of time.

LarryD
November 22, 2016 5:30 pm

“… and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
The Framers were thinking of cases of insurrection and rebellion (e.g., the Civil War), where amnesties and pardons could help heal the commonwealth afterwards. Given the widespread corruption (here I’m mainly thinking of abuse of power and violations of the Constitution) Obama would have to give a very wide blanket pardon to cover everyone. He has actually claimed his administration has had no major scandals, if he has actually convinced himself of this, then he won’t pardon anyone. Because that would be an admission that there were scandals. Of course, he lies like a rug, so we’ll see. Congress can continue to investigate regardless of pardons, and Hillary had a lot of accomplices and enablers. I want the whole thing investigated and documented, regardless.

South River Independent
November 22, 2016 6:04 pm

Trump is a business man who knows that you cannot waste money on futile, useless efforts. He will need the funds from climate change efforts to pay for more promising efforts, like infrastructure improvements.
Remember, too, that, unlike the criminal Hillary, he promised to be President for all Americans. Those Americans will support his policies when they understand the overall benefits.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  South River Independent
November 23, 2016 12:44 am

All the more important for Liberals to keep the hatred coming. Look for the media to double down on the pre-Election lies, innuendos, and exaggerations.

Janice Moore
November 22, 2016 6:29 pm

South (and Dave M. a bit, too): Redemption is done by God alone. Justice (and here, there is NO cause for mercy — none) is the job of the justice system. If it is not allowed to work as it ought to in a given case, it undermines the whole thing. There is no justification for excusing her criminal and national security endangering/treasonous acts. You would give the Clintons a special status that no other American citizen has. No one, not Richard N1xon, not Bernie M@d0ff, not even the Clintons,
is above
the law.
The Clinton Rack@teering Syndicate was dealt a blow, but, it has not been defanged. You underestimate their (and their followers’) drive and influence. So WHAT if this evi1 enterprise has done (or might do) some good — that’s what many cults do! This is no time to back off. We (not Trump, but those already empowered to prosecute her) must finish the job. No settlement. UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER is the only acceptable resolution to their years of betrayal and deceit.
I, for one, will NOT forget:
“We’ll get those people who made that video tape.”

Informed Consumer
November 22, 2016 7:06 pm

The fat lady ain’t singin’ yet folks.

November 22, 2016 7:12 pm

I would very much like to see prominent scientists who are also skeptics, like Richard Lindzen, John Christy, et al. publish an Open Letter to President-Elect Trump, explaining:
– the origins of the CAGW movement and its connection to leftwing globalist ambitions (Algore’s ‘global governance’);
– why the creation of the IPCC with its mandate to make the case for CAGW subverted scientific inquiry with confirmation bias;
– how the billions of government subsidies and grants have skewed the whole subject in favor of Alarmism;
– how in fact there is no empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 causes any measurable warming;
– and how the ‘climate change’ cult is manifestly working to create energy poverty in the third world and among poorer people in the developed world.
And then the letter should request that President Trump fulfill his campaign pledge to stop US funding of the UN climate enterprise, and cut out funding for US scientists currently on the ‘climate change’ gravy train.
The aim would be not only to remind the Trump team of these truths, but to educate the American people, who have been propagandized by the current administration and the entire climate cult for years.
I would be happy to contribute something toward the publication of such a letter, and happy to help in any other way as well.
/Mr Lynn

Bubba Cow
Reply to  L. E. Joiner
November 22, 2016 8:58 pm

Mr Lynn (and all the other big H folks here) –
It is really more insidious than that – the effort has been to set up this carbon economy scheme in parallel, if you will, to Wall Street trading to shuffle the bucks toward wealth redistribution, with bureaucratic control of course. When Trump sees that, deal is done.
Coming out of Marrakesh, I watched the reactions to Trump. One said very clearly that he should recognize the new “climate economy”. Think about that.
Best,
Jim

November 22, 2016 7:24 pm

Trump will stick to his guns on climate. The complicted issue is best legal (US) tactics.

Reply to  ristvan
November 22, 2016 8:39 pm

I hope you are right. He seems to be waffling. . .

Pop Piasa
November 22, 2016 7:42 pm

Perhaps it is time for each of us that agrees to send our president (cc: elected officials) that ‘open letter’ message personally, to show our numbers and our resolve.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Pop Piasa
November 22, 2016 7:46 pm

Apologies, that was intended as a reply to Mr Lynn.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
November 22, 2016 7:49 pm

I certainly will send one of my own and put it on my personal blog. I just think it will carry more weight if it comes from the most prominent among the scientific skeptics.
/Mr Lynn

markl
Reply to  Pop Piasa
November 22, 2016 8:21 pm

Here’s what I sent a couple of weeks ago. KISS….keep it simple stupid. “It’s time the “Climate Change” scam is put to bed for good. CO2 must be removed from EPA’s list of polluters. Historical climate data must be restored to its’ pre corrupted status. No more subsidies around renewable energy….either they make it on their own or fail. Stop brainwashing our students with Climate Change propaganda. Restore the positions of those scientists and educators who dared speak the truth about Climate Change and were subsequently fired for doing so

William Everett
November 22, 2016 10:04 pm

If the record of global temperature history featuring similar length periods of warming and non-warming continues in the same manner then the 21st century will experience only 40 years of warming. If the temperature rise during the warming periods approximates those of the warming periods experienced during the 20th century then the temperature rise in the 21st century will be somewhere around one degree F. Where will the atmospheric CO2 have gone in the non-warming periods?

Keith
November 23, 2016 2:17 am

David Middleton – trifecta of Brexit HRC and Trump’s climate action – I think it comes to 4 rather than 3, or maybe even 5. In the last UK election where the Tories got a large majority, and were able to dump the Liberal Democrats, many of the polls, certainly the Guardian, and many others predicted a very close run thing. Apparently the same issue – people who voted right did not want to say so in the polls. It brought out lots of comments about “closet conservatives” etc. Even in the Scottish referendum in 2014, the polls predicted a 50 / 50 or even 49 / 51, and the result was 55 / 45. Scottish people maybe did not want to say they were against independence because it seemed unpatriotic, but at the end of the day they voted to stay in the UK.

joel
November 23, 2016 7:47 am

Our Chattering Class is in hyperdrive right now. I think they may have left the known universe.
To save ink, paper, bandwidth, and millions of manhours over the next couple of months, why don’t “we” comment on what Mr. Trump actually does.

November 23, 2016 8:24 am

Incompetent ‘science’ has frightened a lot of folks. Mother Nature’s truth will prevail.
Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Terrestrial EMR absorbed by CO2 is effectively rerouted to space via water vapor.
CO2 is not merely harmless, it is profoundly helpful. It is helpful in that it is plant food and reduces plant’s need for water.
Sunspot number anomaly time-integral plus net of the effect of all ocean cycles plus effect of water vapor increase provides a 98% match to temperature anomaly measurements 1895-2015. Analysis and graphs are at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

observa
November 24, 2016 7:12 am

This chick is seriously good-

(hat tip Tim Blair)

%d bloggers like this: