Trump on the Paris Climate Agreement: “I’m looking at it very closely”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Climate advocates are hanging their hopes on President-elect Trump’s alleged softening on the Paris climate agreement, and Trump’s admission that he thinks humans contribute to climate change.

Donald Trump Seems to Retreat on Some Promises

President-elect Donald J. Trump on Tuesday tempered some of his most extreme campaign promises, dropping his vow to jail Hillary Clinton, expressing doubt about the value of torturing terrorism suspects and pledging to have an open mind about climate change.

On climate change, he refused to repeat his promise to abandon the international climate accord reached last year in Paris, saying that, “I’m looking at it very closely.” But he said “I have an open mind to it” and that clean air and “crystal clear water” were vitally important.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-visit.html

Some other interesting highlights;

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-times-tweets.html

Huff Post also reports that Trump thinks humans contribute to climate change;

Donald Trump Now Says Humans Somehow Contribute To Climate Change

“There is some connectivity.”

Donald Trump said Tuesday he thinks there is “some” connection between human activity and climate change. It was a puzzling half-turn by the president-elect, who has called climate change a “hoax” numerous times, and in 2012 said it was invented by the Chinese.

His tune changed ― kind of ― during an interview with The New York Times.

Trump said he is worried about the “cost” to American companies of policies and regulations meant to mitigate the effects of global warming.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/donald-trump-climate_us_58348d49e4b09b6055ff19a3

Frankly I think advocate journalists are reading too much into Trump’s answer to the Paris agreement question.

What I find most fascinating about this media circus, is the media response to the “revelation” that Trump thinks humans contribute to climate change. To me the fact this revelation is any kind of surprise demonstrates an utter failure of journalism when it comes to covering climate skepticism.

The strawman caricature that skeptics think humans have no influence on climate simply isn’t true, in all but a few cases. But there is a huge gulf between believing humans probably nudge the climate a little, enough so we might one day be able to measure human influence on global climate, and declaring CO2 emissions to be a planetary emergency.

Advertisements

256 thoughts on “Trump on the Paris Climate Agreement: “I’m looking at it very closely”

  1. We need a new word…..Trumpism

    This is a Trumpism….the way he says things when he’s not ready to give an answer right then

    • “Trumpism”, I like it! We need to work on the various, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, nouns, etc. Could replace the F word with all its many faceted meanings. We need a hand sign/signal too, something else but middle finger. I’ll start with the interjection; Trump-You! or Go Trump yourself!

      • Except to say “Go Trump yourself” would indicate the person would have to do a lot of hard work, since the Trump works like no other president we’ve ever had.

      • Maybe you have just found the first meaning for “Go Trump Yourself”. Like a coworker that only knows the unions ‘definition’ of their job….Yea, “I cannot do that” he says, “that is not in my job description and I leave at 3:30″……Well then, Go-Trump-Yourself!!!
        I say good thinking…..genius!!

    • Agreed but there is just so much political capital to spend. He might drag out core climate reforms (eliminating the basic AGW fraud) to keep Greenshirt fanatics on the bench. Look at what’s going on in N.Dakota as we write.

      It’s been my fear Climate fraud will be preserved to some extent in some “deal” on other issues. Ebell’s appointment would be extremely positive even if they play the longer game on the issue.

      There is still tremendous efforts required to reverse decades of brainwashing and all of the green propaganda efforts. Better to low key this matter until inauguration but make the critical EPA Ebell appointment.

      His “open mind” comments puts the green left in a bind as well, making it harder to go into activist kiniption mode.

      • Eric

        Surely the Late and great Hubert Lamb summed up the likely impact man has on the climate back in 1994;

        “The idea of climate change has at last taken on with the public after generations which assumed that climate could be taken as constant. But it is easy to notice the common assumption that mans science and modern industry and technology are now so powerful that any change of climate or the environment must be due to us. It is good for us to be more alert and responsible in our treatment of the environment, but not to have a distorted view of our own importance. Above all, we need more knowledge, education and understanding in these matters.”
        Hubert Lamb December 1994

        tonyb

      • an utter failure of journalism when it comes to covering climate skepticism.

        This is because they latched on to the most extreme and inaccurate and old things Trump said about climate ( that it was a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese ) in order to whip up opposition to his campaign.

        They are now left believing their own propaganda that he is equally poorly informed in 2016.

  2. That last paragraph is so true and I wouldn’t mind betting he has softened the tone a bit just once more to confuse the pathetic MSM and so that not too much is done before January when he takes over.

  3. “… believing humans probably nudge the climate a little …”

    Well, at least you got the most important word in there. Sigh.

    • And I, for one, do NOT believe it, for the data, so far, says that all the temperature changes that have been observed are well within the limits of natural variation. There is even ANTI-AGW evidence (beyond the utterly failed climate models): CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

      Lukewarmers may BELIEVE that AGW is real. That is all they can do. They have no evidence it has happened. Just conjecture based on highly controlled laboratory situations extrapolated ad hoc onto the open climate system called “earth.”

      • “Lukewarmers may BELIEVE that AGW is real. That is all they can do. They have no evidence it has happened.”

        I agree with that. Not saying it’s not possible, but there is definitely no evidence of such, and we are at 400ppm, and no warming, as Janice so eloquently tells us.

      • We do “Nudge the climate a little” especially around cities, or are we denying UHI now? Of course humans have an effect, a tiny insignificant effect …

        Nothing Trump said is wrong, Nothing Trump said removes the need to revoke the climate nonsense strangling our economies either. Trump is asking for the elusive cost-benefit, but “Climate Action” is all cost and NO BENEFIT. There is ZERO value in reducing CO2 as there is ZERO value in reducing temperature – just ask the 1/2 of Europe that died during the little ice age, Big Sceance that :-)

        For example if you dealt with sea level rise by building sea walls, reclaiming a few hectares in the process then the land sales would more than pay for the sea walls.

        All the scares have no foundation to them, a house of cards built into an apartment building of cards ready to blow away in the next breeze, and Trump is a superstorm.

      • bobl: I must clarify (thanks for pointing out my need!). I took “nudge the climate” to mean: an enduring shift in a climate zone of the earth, not overwhelmed or supervened by countervailing natural drivers. There is no evidence, not even from UHI, of climate shifts caused by human activity. None. UHI is REAL, lol, of course. It really skews the data at times. It also creates weather and micro-climates around cities. However, it doesn’t shift the climate zones of the earth to any meaningfully enduring degree of significance.

        *********************************

        Thanks, TA! :)

      • I would be happy if they would just stop nudging the temperature history…

        poof…almost all of global warming would instantly disappear

      • “Don’t you believe in climate change?” – I have been asked that question so many times over the years. And I always reply patiently : I think the word “belief” belongs to an un-worldly sphere of concepts – not to global, factual circumstances.

      • Janice

        I subscribe to Dr. Evans proposed model architecture changes. From his Summary I furnish this.

        We conclude that the basic physics, when the basic climate model’s architecture is fixed and modern data applied, shows that:

        The ECS is likely less than 0.25 °C, and most likely less than 0.5 °C.

        The fraction of global warming caused by increasing CO2 in recent decades is likely less than 20%.  The CO2 sensitivity is less than a third of the solar sensitivity.

        Given a non-ascending WVEL, it is difficult to construct a scenario consistent with the observed data in which the influence of CO2 is greater than this. The FFM overestimates surface warming due to increasing CO2 because it applies the strong solar response instead of the weak CO2 response to the CO2 forcing.

        The full article can be found here.
        http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/summary-of-basic-climate-models.pdf

        From my own cyclic analysis of the Hadcrut4 data that makes provision for a contribution from CO2 I get this.

        https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKh_T3hNB24tGmnYgDI
        https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKh_T7Am0L78U9DAkNV

        I computed the correlation coefficient for each figure. I think the fit is quite good.

        The ECS from this evaluation is around 0.227..

        Since I do show a very modest contribution from CO2 does that make me part of the 97% and can I then get rid of my “deniers” club membership?

        Janice we communicated at length a little more than a year ago. I certainly enjoy your comments.

      • “Don’t you believe in climate change?” – I have been asked that question so many times over the years. And I always reply patiently : I think the word “belief” belongs to an un-worldly sphere of concepts – not to global, factual circumstances.

        You can believe something based on evidence, or you can believe it based on wishful thinking. The former is within the realm of science, the latter is religion.

      • Well said Janice Moore. I agree there is no evidence that humanity has ANY influence on Earth’s climate.
        We don’t even know many, or understand any, of the variables or their very complex interactions.
        Jumping to conclusions based on insignificant data seems to be the norm today in climate science, as well as many other sciences that use AGW to attract funding.

      • Thats Ok Janice, just making a point that Trump hasn’t said anything that the majority here wouldn’t. I don’t think Trump is a Sky Dragon so we can’t expect him to take a more extreme position that say I do. We release Petajoules of direct heat into the atmosphere, there will be an effect. By land clearing we even can even affect regional climate over land, (reduced transpiration from land clearing has possibly caused SW WA Australia to become drier) but we don’t strongly affect some 90% of the world.

        Trump is right when he said yes we do affect (regional) climate but it just isn’t significant enough to value over economic success. Said otherwise “The Cost/Benefit” favours economic development over climate boondoggles.

  4. Will he offer climate science some form of trial? Climate scientists never offered CO2 a fair trial before finding it guilty.

  5. “Donald Trump Seems to Retreat”

    This is the headline the Leftwing Media is always looking for, whether it is climate change or any other subject. The purpose is to portray Trump as unreliable and going back on his promises. So they look for any little deviation in Trumps words and then they claim he is retreating on prior promises. That’s what they are doing here. The truth is not in these guys.

    • TA is correct
      Another good example would be the media reporting Trump was retreating on Obama-Care because, he was keeping the existing condition exception and keeping children on their parents policy until they are 26. The media knew very well those two policies were in the Republican plan all along. But they played dumb, because that’s what they think the American people are.

      • Good point, Rotor. They did know those items were included in Trump’s health plan, and in fact, those items have been included in all the most recent Republican health plans.

      • “he was keeping the existing condition exception”

        Thank you for not saying “pre-existing”. I cringe every time I see that meaningless phrase.

      • The problem is that once you agree to keep the pre-conditions part, you have no choice but to accept the mandate.
        Once you have accepted the mandate, then you have to define exactly what is being mandated.
        One step leads to another, and you are back to Obama-care.

    • Lets see – the media he met with are (were?) all vehemently anti Trump and have, in the past NEVER hesitated to provide their own ‘interpretation’ of what he said and usually completely disregarded the context in which he said it.
      So –
      One – are we to conclude that the media have flipped 180 degrees and now support Trump and hes postions? OR
      Two – have decided for unknown reasons to now ‘translate’ his comments accurately? OR
      Three – the media in the meeting – whom we must NEVER forget are NEVER wrong, just ask them – are continuing to deliberately misconstrue and misinterpret what he said FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES.

      I vote for # three.

    • Agreed but there is just so much political capital to spend. He might drag out core climate reforms (eliminating the basic AGW fraud) to keep Greenshirt fanatics on the bench. Look at what’s going on in N.Dakota as we write.

      It’s been my fear Climate fraud will be preserved to some extent in some “deal” on other issues. Ebell’s appointment would be extremely positive even if they play the longer game on the issue.

      There is still tremendous efforts required to reverse decades of brainwashing and all of the green propaganda efforts. Better to low key this matter until inauguration but make the critical EPA Ebell appointment.

      His “open mind” comments puts the green left in a bind as well, making it harder to go into activist kiniption mode.

      • With the “bully pulpit” as support after January 20, 2017, climate skepticism can move from the guerrilla phase to open warfare, as did the North Vietnamese after 1973. The ground game will look manifestly different then. Tactics must necessarily change. Move from defense to offence, people.

    • It could be short-term tactic to keep the fanatical left out of full activist riot mode.

      The might well need the water cannons or more being used on ND pipeline this very moment.

      Climate is as emotionally deranged hobby horse fantasy in leftist/Marxist armchair culture as you can find. The war isn’t going to be won with a simple
      policy reversal. It might take a generation to marginalize green zealots truth be told.

  6. IMO Trump certainly will not sanction any agreement that disadvantages the US economy particularly in relation to China.

  7. Please don’t tell us that Neil deGrasse Tyson ( he with the AGW crotch grab) got an “interview” with Trump.

  8. Thus far, Trump does tend to be a bit vague at times. Letting someone read what they want into a vague statement seems to be a tactic of his that did prove effective.

    • The only problem with Trump being vague is he allows Leftwing reporters to do the interpreting, and of course, they interpret it in a manner that harms Trump the most.

      But, this has been going on this entire election cycle and Trump is still going strong, and he seems to be able to overcome the bad press no matter what they throw at him.

      Other Republicans, like Mitt Romney, would be licking the boots of the Leftwing Media by this time in the game. They want so much to be loved by the MSM. They think that is their road to success. They don’t understand that they will never be totally accepted by them not matter what they do. That doesn’t keep them from trying over and over again.

      Trump has changed this relationship, at least for himself. And that’s a good thing.

      • Notice the outrage over The Donald not genuflecting at the MSM alter, as all the other politicians, left and right, have done in the past? He actually had the effrontery to criticize the media brass at their closed door meeting. The nerve!

      • All the other politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, think if they can get the MSM on their side, then they will have it made in the game of politics.

        And if they do get the MSM on their side, then they will have it made for the most part, witness Barack Obama and the kid glove treatment he gets from the MSM, which elevates him above a 50 percent approval rating, just because the MSM *never* criticizes anything he does. Hillary may be the exception lately. The MSM has lost a lot of its hold on the public imagination. Not enough, though.

        The problem for the Republicans is the MSM will NEVER be on their side and the Republicans don’t understand this, and keep trying to get in the good graces of the MSM by refraining from challenging their lies and treating them like normal people, instead of the political partisans they are.

        It’s a lost cause, Republicans. The MSM will never love you. Their hearts belong to another ideology. You might as well start taking them on head-on like Trump does. It works for him. It might work for you, too, as long as you don’t get weak in the knees halfway through. Then you will just look foolish. Like now.

  9. And, in the hopes that, SOMEDAY, WUWT will feature this data-based view:

    Dr. Pat Frank lecture:

    No Certain Doom: On the Accuracy of Projected Global Average Surface Air Temperatures

    (youtube)

    Note: If any of you watch this and like it, try to get Anthony’s attention on the “Tips..” thread. Three of us have tried (last summer) to no avail.

    • Janice Moore ==> I think the mods are supposed to watch the Tips and alert Anthony to anything important — I might be wrong. If it were me, that’s how I would arrange it — he can’t possibly be expected to watch the comment feeds AND run (two?) businesses, manage the content of the world’s most-viewed climate science website, prepare daily radio weather reports for local radio, and be a father to boot. He does respond to direct emails particularly with well-thought out subject lines.

      • Perhaps an automatic filter to archive anything over 6 months old. The page takes a looooong time to load because it has gotten so big.

    • That video is from July Janice – excellent video, I’m watching it now, but it is from months ago.

      Wait till Pat Frank or another major skeptic does a new lecture, get the link to Anthony within a week or so of publication.

      • Dear Eric,

        WE TRIED THEN to get it featured on WUWT. So, we are left with:

        1. July, 2016 — Pat Frank’s video is published.
        2. August, 2016 — Three WUWT commenters try to get WUWT to feature it.

        3. August, 2016 – November, 2016 — Janice and others post the video trying to get it noticed.

        4. November 22, 2016 — after trying and trying, WUWT tells us, “Sorry. You are too late. That video is too old, now.”

        The content is not time-sensitive. It is still VERY good learning material.

        So, the question remains: why not feature it?

        It looks bad for WUWT to silently refuse to publish such a fine lecture. It has the appearance of the lousy crony peer review such publications as Nature now does. It APPEARS (not concluding) that a lukewarmist editorial policy intentionally made sure it was not published on WUWT. PLEASE SHOW ME THAT I AM MISTAKEN about that guess.

        Thanks for responding,

        Janice

      • {Third attempt to post}

        Dear Eric,

        WE TRIED THEN to get it featured on WUWT. So, we are left with:

        1. July, 2016 — Pat Frank’s video is published.
        2. August, 2016 — Three WUWT commenters try to get WUWT to feature it.

        3. August, 2016 – November, 2016 — Janice and others post the video trying to get it noticed.

        4. November 22, 2016 — after trying and trying, WUWT tells us, “Sorry. You are too late. That video is too old, now.”

        The content is not time-sensitive. It is still VERY good learning material.

        So, the question remains: why not feature it?

        It looks bad for WUWT to silently refuse to publish such a fine lecture. It APPEARS (not concluding) that a lukewarmist editorial policy intentionally made sure it was not published on WUWT. PLEASE SHOW ME THAT I AM MISTAKEN about that guess.

        Thanks for responding,

        Janice

      • There’s no intentional moderation Janice. There’s simply an errant numeral 6 in front of your email address, thus the wordpress system flagged you as a new unique commenter, and it took me awhile to get to moderation today as I have another project I’m working on.

        Somehow your wordpress account has been edited, probably an errant keystroke.

      • Also, I’ve not seen Pat Frank’s video that I recall. My email is like a firehose and I don’t read every comment here, it is impossible for me to do so.

        Anthony

      • “It looks bad for WUWT to silently refuse to publish such a fine lecture. It APPEARS (not concluding) that a lukewarmist editorial policy intentionally made sure it was not published on WUWT.”

        This seems a little over the top Janice.

  10. …I see the liberal main street media has learned exactly nothing from this past election…I guess they are simply dishonest to the core…

    • Marcus, SO good to see you are posting in real time (albeit with a time stamp that is still one hour ahead, lol). Please, please, give me a Christmas gift of keeping that real time status going! Sounds dumb, but, it hurts my heart to see someone so enthusiastic and full of love of truth sitting in the “corner” waving his hand and being ignored. Be good to YOURSELF (too). Janice

      • Marcus,

        You know that is not what I meant. Grr. Do comment — just, you know, be careful.

        Janice

        P.S. I am having a very tough time getting my comments to post on this thread — is anyone else having that problem today?

      • ..I knew exactly what you meant, dear Janice…just having some fun on you, and no, I am having no trouble posting tonight, may need to clean your cache. ?

    • “Dishonest to the core”, I think liberals are better than that honestly, there are many great/good liberals. I have learned Liberals (vs. Conservative in the Canadian sense) just view life differently. It’s the ‘herd’ mentality. They need a Sheppard to guide, think and control, otherwise they may get lost (in a very general sense).

      • ..and it also helps to have the sexiest liberal around, our Mr. Trudeau. The ‘herd’ love’s someone without a ‘red’ face. Just goes to show how hypocritical they are making fun of that. Nice to see you out of the “penalty box”, keep the passion alive!

      • “I think liberals are better than that honestly, there are many great/good liberals.”

        Perhaps there used to be…

      • “Perhaps there used to be…” No, No, No. Liberals are good, just different. I believe in tolerance, just remember, Liberals are your next door neighbor, your best friend, your wife, your son, your daughter. That is a paraphrase from Mr, Trudeau, the one (not only) statement I respected him for after his election. We will not gain support if we shout-down others with words like that.

      • Liberals care, they just don’t care enough to do it themselves. They seem to think caring means voting for politicians who promise to use other people’s money to solve every problem in the world.

      • Are you saying that conservatives don’t believe in tolerance?
        Regardless of what liberals say, it’s what they do that matters to me. In action, liberals are only tolerant towards those who agree with and support them.
        Liberals strike me as co-dependants, while conservatives are more on the lines of letting people suffer the consequences of their own folly.

      • @Mark, Personally I come here for an education and conversation with like minded individuals. Opinion, complain and attack someone for their beliefs, hypocrisy or bad science no problem. The generalized “everybody else is an idiot” statements add nothing to the conversation. That is my only point, getting tired of seeing more of them. If I am in the minority so be it.

  11. Those of us who followed this press conference live on the NY Times website were treated to tweets from a half dozen NY Times journalists in the room in real time. The major problem was that they never gave the full question to which they supplied Trump’s one line answer — and in many cases only gave a one liner out of Trump’s fuller answer. The report on the meeting currently available on the NY Times still has this same problem.

    If you want to know what Trump said, you’ll have to wait for the full transcript, otherwise you are reading a liberal-progressive’s interpretation of what was said — even when they supply a word for word quote, it is probably a partial quote (how much can you type in in twits?)

    The language of the tweets exposes the bias of the journalists — read them and see.

  12. The secret for trump is to keep them guessing, furious and upset. Keep the stress level up and their brains in limbo. Let’s wait until Inauguration Day. Keep building the team now and unleash it when the time is ripe.

  13. Speaking of poor journalism or political bias or both, the North Dakota Pipeline reporting is a classic example:

    Checking the facts once again
    Posted on September 7, 2016

    1.CLAIM: The pipeline encroaches on indigenous lands.

    TRUTH: The Dakota Access Pipeline traverses a path on private property and does not cross into the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. 100% of landowners in North Dakota voluntarily signed easements to allow for construction of the pipeline on their property.  Nearly the entire route of the 1,172 mile pipeline has been sited and approved by relevant state and federal agencies and more than 22% of the pipeline has already been completed. To the extent possible, the Dakota Access Pipeline was routed to parallel existing infrastructure, such as the Northern Border Pipeline, to avoid environmentally sensitive areas and areas of potential cultural significance.

    2. CLAIM: The pipeline exposes the Tribe’s water supply to contamination.

    TRUTH: Pipelines are – by far – the safest way to transport energy liquids and gases. Already, 8 pipelines cross the Missouri River carrying hundreds of thousands of barrels of energy products every day.  That includes the Northern Border natural gas pipeline – built in 1982 – that parallels the planned crossing for Dakota Access for 40 miles as well as high voltage transmission power lines.  Once completed, the Dakota Access Pipeline will be among the safest, most technologically advanced pipelines in the world.
    In addition, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s water intake is scheduled to be moved by the end by of the year.  The Missouri River intake serving the Tribe is being switched to Mobridge, South Dakota, nearly 50 miles south of the current water intake and about 70 miles south of the planned Dakota Access river crossing.

    3. CLAIM: The tribal community was not part of the discussion.

    TRUTH:  389 meetings took place between the U.S. Army Corps and 55 tribes about the Dakota Access project. In addition the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe met individually with the U.S. Army Corps nearly a dozen times to discuss archaeological and other surveys conducted to finalize the Dakota Access route.
    Based on input from a number of sources, the pipeline route was adjusted in September 2014, to shorten the pipeline by 11 miles, avoid buildings and other structures, and cross fewer waterways and roads.

    4. CLAIM: The pipeline is disrupting areas of cultural significance.

    TRUTH: Safeguarding and ensuring the longevity of culturally significant artifacts and sites is of interest to all Americans.   That’s why the Dakota Access Pipeline traverses a path on private property.  And the Dakota Access Pipeline was routed to parallel existing infrastructure, such as the Northern Border Pipeline and high voltage transmission power lines.  Therefore the Dakota Access route has already been under construction twice before.  Designing the route to parallel existing infrastructure mitigates any additional impacts to the environment and avoids areas of potential cultural significance.
    Additionally, on site there are professional archeologists who are able to identify and properly tend to artifacts and evidence of culturally significant sites if any not identified by the surveys are discovered.

    5. CLAIM: On site protests have been peaceful.

    TRUTH: Unfortunately, the emotionally charged atmosphere has led to several outbreaks of violence which has endangered the safety of the workers and the protesters themselves.  Protesters have rushed police lines, threatened and assaulted private security officers, and thrown rocks and bottles at workers.  And let’s remember, the work that is being done is in full accordance with all state and federal regulations and on private property – not on reservation land.

    6. CLAIM: A young girl from the Tribe was mauled by a security dog.

    TRUTH: This is a doctored photo.  The original is from a June 2012 article from the New York Daily News.

    * 
SR Fact Checker ‪@StandingRockFct‬ 

Native groups were consulted nearly 400 times on ‪#DAPL‬ http://
bit.ly/2dLCqmm 




Video: Standing Rock Fact Checker on consultations with Native groups – Standing Rock Fact Checker
One of the frequent claims made by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other Dakota Access Protestors is there was no “meaningful consultation” about the project’s route—but this is simply not the…
standingrockfactchecker.org

    





    • check out the sayanythingblog of Rob Port – he lives there and sees it clearly and it is another well recognized and rewarded blog (political)

    • Thank you for that, Steve Heins!

      I just ran into one of the goodhearted brainwashed (by that exact Indians’ food and water threatened, etc., propaganda) a couple weeks ago. She ticked off almost that entire list above. I tried to tell her the facts, but, I only had generalizations (true, but, no sources to cite).

      Next time! I am ready!

      Sigh. And there will be no “next time” unless there is an open mind willing to really listen…. Still — very glad to have that great info..

      THANK YOU!

      Janice

    • Add on the is a three-foot gas pipeline crossing through the same are, put in in the 1980’s and not a peep about it from anyone on. the lies only compound! Add in the protester are cutting fence line on private property harassing the land owners and killing the land owners cattle and Bison, one can only guess what they think of the rule of law.

    • Oh, but they’ve declared that they’re sorry that they have been untruthful and that when Trump takes office, they’ll start telling the truth.

    • Paul, the NYT hard journalism reporting is as truthful as it comes IMHO.

      The problem is the double-standrad on what they ask in interviews and what they dig into..

      An example or two:
      – Trumps’s daughter was asked by a CNN reporter in an interview what she thought of her dad’s sexist remarks and women groping antics. The double standard is they NEVER would have asked Chelsea a question like that about Her father.

      – Trump SHOULD be hit with hard questions about his attitudes toward the so-called Alt-Right racists and bigots. They should expect himself to distance himself from them (he did). But the NYT or any one in the mainstream media would never ask Obama how he felt about the Black Panthers and why the DoJ under Eric Holder dropped its Philly investigation of racist intimidation tactics. Double standard.

      Our pols need to be held to account for what they say. It is just that a double standard has developed between what they would dig into between Republicans (deeply) and Democrats (in Clinton’s case, they let her skate).

      And the NYT is very guilty in it journalistic coverage of a double standard.

      Opinion editorials are different story. They are opinions. Not to be confused with journalism.

      • Or perhaps about the whole “…I’ll grab her by the p***y…” comment. What would the Left have said if Hillary made the following comment: “…I’ll grab him by the balls…”. Think about that one. Double Standards anyone?

  14. Looks to me Trump can play the lot of ’em like a finely tuned custom Stratocaster.

    This could be fun.

    • I would have said a Stradivari violin, but the sentiment is the same. He is OUT of Paris. As to CPP, he has to do nothing until after his Supreme nominee is confirmed. It has been stayed on grounds likely unconstitutional. Maybe pass a new CAA pollutant definition ( the current law defines a pollutant as that which pollutes, an invitation to abuse) to obviate the lawsuit by removing jurisdiction. Watermelon wishful strategy thinking will not come to pass. Only question is one of tsctics.

    • @ cat and joel, I played a beautiful Gibson 12 string (once). Trumps does sound like all those instruments both of you mentioned. He is not giving them any hard answers and he should not. Remember he is still “President Elect”. Anything he will say definitely will come Jan 21 2017 ( God willing).

  15. {Second attempt to post — why am I having so much trouble posting on this particular thread today??}

    Dear Eric,

    WE TRIED THEN to get it featured on WUWT. So, we are left with:

    1. July, 2016 — Pat Frank’s video is published.
    2. August, 2016 — Three WUWT commenters try to get WUWT to feature it.

    3. August, 2016 – November, 2016 — Janice and others post the video trying to get it noticed.

    4. November 22, 2016 — after trying and trying, WUWT tells us, “Sorry. You are too late. That video is too old, now.”

    The content is not time-sensitive. It is still VERY good learning material.

    So, the question remains: why not feature it?

    It looks bad for WUWT to silently refuse to publish such a fine lecture. It APPEARS (not concluding) that a lukewarmist editorial policy intentionally made sure it was not published on WUWT. PLEASE SHOW ME THAT I AM MISTAKEN about that guess.

    Thanks for responding,

    Janice

    • Janice Moore ==> You seem to be quite adamant about this Pat Frank video getting posted at WUWT. Not quite sure why. It certainly does not change the face of Climate Science, it doesn’t present any breakthrough findings from new studies, it isn’t going to change the minds of the nearly 100% skeptical crowd here at WUWT…..so what’s the big deal?

      It may well be a great lecture and if your feel that strongly about it, YOU could write a Guest Post, featuring the lecture, giving a synopsis and linking to it for those who have the time and inclination to watch a 42 minute YouTube.

      You could even do the public service of transcribing it, creating stills (slides) for illustration and offering to to Anthony for posting.

      But quite honestly, your implied SLANDER and EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL is unworthy:

      “It looks bad for WUWT to silently refuse to publish such a fine lecture. It APPEARS (not concluding) that a lukewarmist editorial policy intentionally made sure it was not published on WUWT. PLEASE SHOW ME THAT I AM MISTAKEN about that guess.”


      I suggest you apologize
      and take some personal responsibility if you wish to see a particular issue aired here at WUWT.

      • Dear Mr. Hansen,

        Good for you to staunchly defend WUWT.

        I suggest, however, you look up the definition of “slander” before you accuse someone of it.

        I suggest also that you look in the mirror and ask yourself, “Why did I accuse Janice of ’emotional blackmail?’ There is nothing in her comment to substantiate that claim.”

        “Emotional blackmail” — a powerful form of manipulation in which people close to us threaten to punish us for not doing what they want. (Source: https://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Blackmail-People-Obligation-Manipulate/dp/0060928972).

        You misapplied that term to me for I am:

        1. Not attempting to manipulate — I was STRAIGHTFORWARDLY ASKING.
        2. Not close to anyone responsible for the content of WUWT.
        3. I did not threaten punishment.

        A “lukewarmist” editorial policy is simply a description — why would one need to apologize for using it? As far as I know, lukewarmists are proud, not ashamed, to bear that name; they simply consider it the best position.

        Am I not allowed to express an opinion? “It looks bad” is simply how I called it. It looked bad to me. The end.

        Your reaction is quite interesting…. I wonder why…..

        Happy Thanksgiving, Mr. Hansen.

        My gift to you is to forgive your overheated remarks.

        Sincerely yours,

        Janice

      • Kip, please note that your “implied SLANDER and EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL” parallels the left and MSM tactic of “implied racism, homophobia and war on women” attacks on otherwise innocuous comments. Be aware of your acts.

      • Janice Moore ==> Implied Slander = “It looks bad for WUWT to silently refuse to publish such a fine lecture. It APPEARS (not concluding) that a lukewarmist editorial policy intentionally made sure it was not published on WUWT.” You imply that 1) WUWT has refused to publish (weasel-wording it with ‘appears’), 2) that WUWT has (at all) a climate-wars-partisan editorial policy–which it does not and never has had and 3) that such policy intentionally excluded the lecture from its content. All three of things things are forbidden by expressed WUWT policy and contrary to Anthony Watts’ vision for this blog. To accuse Anthony or this blog of such things is slander.

        Emotional Blackmail == “PLEASE SHOW ME THAT I AM MISTAKEN about that guess.” You are a recognized name in the climate skeptic world, and make a conditional out of what you term “straighforward asking” — Anthony must comply or else he has refused, has a partisan editorial policy, and is intentionally excluding the video. ( Perhaps that is some other kind of blackmail… not emotional..or maybe “emotional BLACKMAIL”).

        Anthony, after ten years and great personal cost, has nothing that he needs to prove (“show me”) to you or anyone else about his personal or professional-blogger integrity. He certainly is under no obligation to post or not post anything.

        Still waiting for your published apology…..

      • Dear Mr. Hansen,

        Apparently, you and I just use the English language differently.

        1. I did NOT “imply” that WUWT refused (intentionally, of course, lol) to publish; I wondered if that were true.

        2. I did NOT “imply” that WUWT had a lukewarmist editorial point of view. I wondered if that were true.

        I said: It APPEARS (not concluding).

        Again, in another English language difference between us, you misinterpret my use of please show me that I am mistaken about that guess. That means (to me) merely what it says, “Give me a reason to not think the editorial policy is what I fear.” Asking for a REASON does not = “publish the Frank lecture or else,” lol. Eric answered rationally, explaining that he felt the video was too old. I pointed out that when it was not too old, we tried hard to get it published. I only requested an explanation. REQUESTED. I did not demand or threaten. What I requested was the answer to “why?” Anthony need not answer that. Why do you think he would, unless it was a legitimate concern? I have no sway over Anthony — I have never even met him. I hope you can understand what I am writing here.

        Your false accusation of slander is offensive, but, as I said last night, I forgive you. You are obviously very emotional about this and are not thinking clearly. To “slander” is to intentionally assert positively a false statement, e.g., “This site is rigged.” If the site IS rigged, it is not slander. What is NOT slander is saying, “It appears to be rigged.” I hope you can see the difference, for that is why you will not see me apologizing for what I wrote. I did not slander anyone (as you have come close to doing to me, by mischaracterizing my remarks).

        You call “appears” a “weasel” word. To many of us, it has a precise and significant meaning and is a valid, well-established, qualifier used by many throughout the centuries to communicate accurately.

        So, you know what the editorial policy of WUWT is (for that is the only way you know what it is not with the high confidence you assert). How did you come to know that? I do not know that it is. Thus, I wondered about it.

        Re: Anthony’s’ vision for this blog (again, how is it you know what this is so very well?), my impression from reading it is that the controlling principle for WUWT is: freedom of expression. Questioning is allowed here (unlike at many other sites). You seem to want to create a false impression of cohesion and group-think at WUWT. I could cite many comments (which you did not see fit to dispute, which makes me wonder why you attack–> me….) which sharply questioned WUWT’s content. Honest questions are ENCOURAGED, here. My concerns struck a nerve with you — that does not make them unique or worthy of exceptional condemnation.

        I did not use any threatening language. I have NO influence with Anthony, lol. That you think I do is simply a mistake on your part. What I did was TALK ABOUT IT. I talked about what troubled me, about my impressions, and that made you angry.

        FInally, I do not hold you responsible for your slander of me because I think:

        1. you did it unintentionally, simply out of blind loyalty to Anthony (and that’s a good thing — good for you);

        2. your emotions are running away with you and you can’t be held responsible; and

        3. it is very easy to see the falsity of your accusation by simply reading what I wrote in this thread, so, I have no need to clear my name with anyone; the evidence is there for anyone who cares to read it.

        So, I’m moving on. I hope you can, too.

        HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

        With continued admiration for your fine mind and gratitude for all the first-class, free, teaching you have so generously provided at WUWT,

        Your ally for truth in science,

        Janice

      • Janice Moore1) ==> I take it then that you do not intend to do either of the following:

        1) Take responsibility for your statements and actions (posted repeatedly….). Rather, you attempt to sweet talk your way out of your offense and place blame on me for pointing it out.

        2) Apologize for the accusations in your repeated comments.

        Instead of these things, you have spent your efforts on this and this.

        So be it.

        Your time, effort, and emotion might better have been spent taking responsibility for the content you wished to see posted here, preparing it for posting as a transcript or essay, and sending it to Anthony by email.

      • I think you handled that very well, Janice.

        As you wrote: ” I have no need to clear my name with anyone; the evidence is there for anyone who cares to read it.”

        I agree. Plain to see.

    • No, I am not. There was a char inadvertently inserted into my e mail address which sent every single comment of mine to the spam bin. All is well.

    • Not to long ago one of my comments would not post even though I tried rewording it to avoid possible problem words. After 3 tries I test posted a brief message just to see If I could post at all. It posted, but because I said “this is a test” I got lectured by a moderator telling me I should only send tests through the test link! I never did see my missing post, and no explanation, either. But I haven’t gone back to check since that day.

      SR

    • Not to long ago one of my posts would not post even though I tried changing the wording to avoid possible objectionable words. After three failed tries I posted a brief note just to see if I could post at all. That note posted, but because i said “this is a test”, I got lectured by moderator telling me I should have used the “test” link! I never did see my original post, though I did not go back to check after that .

      SR

    • HA HA HA, the jokes on me! I just tried twice to comment on my recent experience with a post that disappeared into m0der@tion, only this new post also disappeared, because (I think) I did not disguise the word “m0der@tion”. Mods, can you make my post appear? If so, just one copy will suffice, thanks.

      SR

  16. He needs to alay fears until he is sworn in on January 20th. At smart strategy is to not signal your intentions before you execute your plan.
    That goes for war, politics, and business.
    Does Apple or Google tell the world what their next big products are 18 months out? No. They develop, test, and manufacture in secret. Then they rollout when ready to ship.
    Would you give your political foes 2 months head start to throwup roadblocks before you can stop them?

    Wait till January 21, 2017 or later. There’s no hurry. Most of Obama’s legacy can be quietly swept away without any drama or theatrics.
    Trump can quietly kill CPP, retool the EPA, and then have Congress amend the Clean Air Act

    • Trump has repeatedly said, when asked what he would do about ISIS, that he would not tell his enemies what he planned on doing…

      • I knew that. I just wanted brevity and climate relevance.

        It would be stupid of Trump to allow the Left and their media lap dogs to have a 2 month head start hammering him on the Climate Hustle.

      • “It would be stupid of Trump to allow the Left and their media lap dogs to have a 2 month head start hammering him on the Climate Hustle.”

        That’s what they were trying to do to Trump at the New York Times yesterday.

        Everyone ought to read an actual transcript of the meeting, and ignore the interpretations put out by the MSM. You will see that Trump has not changed his position on CAGW. Thomas Friedman and the publisher were arguing with Trump about CAGW, and Trump was arguing back. Not backing down.

  17. Trump said what needed to be said while he was campaigning. Now he needs to say and do what is required to stay alive until January 20.
    The Democratic Party is fully invested in Climate Change. If (when) the theory is debunked, it will be fatal for the Democratic Party.
    Kill or be kill is pretty much a universal sentiment…
    If I were Trump, I’d cross my fingers, put on a straight face and swear to keep an open mind … until after I was sworn in. Then I’d keep an open mind to the possibility that it’s a political hoax, or maybe a scheme perpetrated by the Chinese, or a Bolshevic conspiracy.
    I personally suspect the latter.
    Al Gore Sr and Jr were pretty tight with comrade Armand Hammer. Armand lived in Moscow from 1920 to 1930, carousing with the Bolshevics and peddling treasures confiscated from the liquidated upper class. Hammer was a cheerleader for communism his entire life and he lived to watch the collapse of the Soviet Empire. (ref Dossier by Jay Epstein)
    Sabotaging America’s hegemony is what Global Warming was intended to do.
    Dave Keeling had been measuring atmospheric CO2 levels since 1958. It only caused a panic 30 years later exactly when Soviet communism was collapsing.
    The timing, Al Gore’s finger prints and his close ties to Armand are enough evidence for me.
    Oh! Al’s daughter Karenna Gore-Schiff married the grandson of Jacob Henry Schiff – the fellow who financed the downfall of the Czar, and the rise of the Bolshevics.
    Curiouser and curiouser…

    • Everyone needs to take a deep breath and realize that the Government of the Republic of the United States of America “… maneuvers with the stately grace of a battleship”. The 2017 budget submittal is already pretty much locked in stone – an incoming administration can’t make major changes in it before it is due to the Congress. The Pentagon has a 4-year planning cycle – their 2020 budget is already being formd. Many of Mr Trump’s “first day” actions aren’t actually within his jurisdiction – they will require Congressional action, And once something is being debated in Congress, the lobbyists, the special interests, the NGOs all get in in the background to protect their oxes from being gored. The election is over, now the real work, and the vigilance starts.
      And a Happy Thanksgiving to all the US folks on this site.

      • Everyone needs to take a deep breath and realize that the Government of the Republic of the United States of America “… maneuvers with the stately grace of a dead sloth”.

        Fixed it for ya.

  18. Just so the new Administration is clear, there are 7 things which I do not want to buy — either personally or through mandates and subsidies — from Mitt Romney:

    worthless wind turbines
    sun panels
    Smartmeters
    electric vehicles
    electric vehicle government research and development
    health care products
    health care bills

    Thanks and have a beautiful day.

    • In fact, a little more detail on Donald J Trump’s economic thinking about mandates would be nice. The progressive republicans and the progressive left believe that forcing people to buy products (usually because they are environmentally approved) is a legitimate form of economic activity. It isn’t.

      I have excused his comments about using 35% tariffs on certain goods from overseas US companies. The reason I did not raise an eyebrow at this action is because it was in the context of removing debilitating energy regulations and costs, and re-doing NAFTA. Within that context, the inducements to go to Mexico would be eliminated anyway.

  19. Eric,

    “What I find most fascinating about this media circus, is the media response to the “revelation” that Trump thinks humans contribute to climate change. To me the fact this revelation is any kind of surprise demonstrates an utter failure of journalism when it comes to covering climate skepticism.”

    Well, you’re a journalist, so here’s your chance; What the hell is “climate skepticism”?

      • Thanks, Eric,

        So it’s really “the climate community” you’re skeptical of . . not climate? ; )

        It’s time to stop using the lingo the mass media propagandists have assigned to “us” and are comfy with us using, it seems to me. People (for the most part) seem to be well aware of the propagandist nature of current mass media systems, and I feel it behooves us to strike while the iron is hot, so to speak. Adding a word or two, like maybe *climate alarm skepticism*, *climate scare skepticism*, or *climate panic skepticism* would help inform the general public, such that “the media circus” would lose some clout in this realm, too.

      • I used to have long debates about this kind of thing with my grandpa. He was for hardline precise use of language. My view is labels and phrases after a while take on a meaning of their own, distinct from the original meaning of the words.

      • Well, sure, but

        ‘Trump on the Paris Climate Agreement: “I’m looking at it very closely” ‘

        Climate alarm skepticism

        . .

    • That’s the way I see it. A virtual independent like Trump who is his own man and not in anyone’s pocket must be in permanent fits of laughter as he plans what the MSM are going to say next. The boot is firmly on the other foot now and he can play with those idiots like an orca with a seal pup.

    • Eliza, don’t believe all that propaganda the MSM puts out. They are not going to report the truth about Trump.

      You are in the right place if you want to know the truth (or as close as we can get to it). Stick around and read the thoughts of some very knowledgeable people who post here. Knowledgeable about a lot of topics.

      And you even get both sides of the story here, most of the time. The only time you don’t is when the other side declines to participate.

  20. Gary: “Trumpophobia”__ an obsessive, irrational fear of Donald Trump.

    You might be a Trumpophobe if …you think the Clinton Foundation is a charity.
    You might be a Trumpophobe if …you think Benghazi was a movie.
    You might be a Trumpophobe if …you voted more than once in the 2016 election.
    You might be a Trumpophobe if …you think Al Gore can save the Planet.
    You might be a Trumpophobe if …you think YOU can save the Planet.
    You might be a Trumpophobe if …you think Somalis are refugees from Syria.
    You might be a Trumpophobe if …you identify as a race other than your biological one.
    You might be a Trumpophobe if …you drive a Prius.
    etc…

  21. Trump’s comment “I might have brought it up” refers to just one wind farm. An off-shore wind farm that happens to be in sight of his golf course complex in Scotland.

    See this for what it is. Trump using his political power to interfere with another country’s domestic politics in order to further his own business interests.

  22. I think this is Trump trying to be Trump the diplomat rather than Trump the Alpha-male billionaire, which is the persona that made him a successful businessman and won him the election.

    I also think Trump is getting some terrible counsel from RINOs that still see CAGW as a means to ameliorate relations with Lefties, steal a lot of taxpayer money, get mega-tons of pork for their states/districts, usurp power and control over the economy, and get campaign contributions from Big Biz involved in the alt-energy sc-m.

    Trump has the opportunity to kill the CAGW ho-x by the end of second term and save millions of lives in the Third World, save 10’s of millions of jobs, save the world economy $10’s of trillions, and destroy the Left, who inflicted the scourge on the world for 30+ years.

    Screw the loony Lefties both foreign and domestic– Make the World Great Again..

  23. As an outsider I haven’t seen this much euphoria since Obama was elected 8 years ago. His believers really did believe that everything would be nobel peace prize winning wonderful.

    Whilst encouraged by the bloody nose Trump has given the establishment and the statements he has made about defunding the climate gravy train, he is no more the messiah than Obama was.

    I counsel his most enthusiastic supporters with this advice about all politicians:
    Hear what they say but watch what they do.

  24. “But he said “I have an open mind to it” and that clean air and “crystal clear water” were vitally important.”
    This is not “climate”. It is “environment”, and this is the only thing we can and must take care of. Climate wise, the earth and the sun do what they do, and we’re only riding along like mites on an elephant…

  25. Hurray, only my university account has been blocked!

    I think the best interpretation of Trump’s statements on climate is that he has pathetic desire to be loved and says what he thinks the audience wants to hear. In front of a Republican crowd, he’ll say that climate is a hoax. In front of a crowd of New York Times journalists, he’ll say that climate change is real and human-made.

    Some president.

    • I think the better interpretation i that he doesn’t want to give the MSM an excuse to rant against him.

      SR

    • “I think the best interpretation of Trump’s statements on climate is that he has pathetic desire to be loved and says what he thinks the audience wants to hear.”

      And I think you haven’t the first clue what you’re wittering about.

      Remember “Bush Derangement Syndrome”?

      You’re suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.

      Trump’s win has really boiled your piss, hasn’t it?

      • @catweazle666
        I’m indeed worried about the geopolitical implications of President Trump, I see his administration as a real test for the strength of US institutions, and I am concerned about the racism and sexism he has stirred up.

        I don’t think that having a Trump climate policy for 8 years makes a lot of difference from having a Clinton climate policy for 8 years.

        But while a Clinton climate policy was roughly predictable — she would have continued Obama’s policy but with reduced vigour — a Trump climate policy is not.

        Trump was a firm supporter of climate policy before he ran for president. Trump has called climate change a Chinese hoax, a ridiculous theory because it if were a hoax, the Chinese had nothing to do with it. He wants to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement, a meaningless gesture as Paris does not oblige the USA to do anything. Or maybe he does not want to abandon Paris. He talks about reviving coal and stimulating shale gas, ignoring that shale gas killed coal. He talks about clean coal, which is typically understood to be coal with carbon capture and storage.

        In sum, I am more puzzled than worried about Trump’s climate policy.

      • Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
        November 24, 2016 at 12:01 am
        ….He talks about reviving coal and stimulating shale gas, ignoring that shale gas killed coal. He talks about clean coal, which is typically understood to be coal with carbon capture and storage.

        In sum, I am more puzzled than worried about Trump’s climate policy.

        First of all, coal has not been killed, yet. It is still the largest provider of electricity generation.

        The clean coal reference and reference to carbon capture is only typically MISunderstood by those people who believe that CO2 is unclean. The reality is that the newer coal plants are cleaner in the sense that there are fewer particulates, NOx and SOx which can only be a positive move.
        CO2 of course is essential for all life on earth ( with water and sunshine enabling photosynthesis) and which almost reached a level during the Little Ice Age which could have meant the end of life on earth. We don’t want to go back there.

        As an aside, a practical method of carbon capture on the scale which would be necessary has not yet been created. Trump’s climate policy, when announced, will I hope, reduce energy costs, create jobs and save the lives of countless people by reducing the need to heat or eat.

        You have to remember Trump is not yet President and will have to be judged post 20th Jan and not on interpretations (accurate or distorted) before then. He would be silly to be too clear before 20th Jan.

        SteveT

      • “Another model I presume”
        No actually.
        And what’s more the lead scientist was Richard Muller, who was a sceptic prior to doing this, oh and BTW, the study was funded by the Koch bros.
        (you do know what their MO is?)

      • ” Richard Muller, who was a sceptic prior to doing this”

        No, not really.

        As to Koch Bros, you haven’t a clue what their MO is.

  26. Busy post here. But the one thing Trump said that I’m keeping my eye on is that “You don’t tell your enemy what your plan is”. And obama can still do a lot of damage. Pardon hillary, perhaps some things on the Paris agreement, like for instance pay a huge amount of wealth up front, like he did with Iran….

  27. I think Trump is playing the media as usual. Forget what he said to the NYT and look at his outline for the first 100 days and what he put in his Contract to the USA people –the later includes

    “FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves,including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

    SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward.

    SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure”

    Add to that , his first appointment was Ebell to clean up the EPA.

    There is no way he will back down on this –if he does he’ll deserve all the criticism he will get.

    • “There is no way he will back down on this –if he does he’ll deserve all the criticism he will get.”
      I am so waiting…..

    • The people in his transition team and likely political appointees are more consistent with his “Contract” than the extrapolations of his NYT comments….

      Donald Trump has said he has an “open mind” over US involvement in the Paris agreement to combat climate change, after previously pledging to withdraw from the effort.

      Asked by the New York Times whether he would pull the US out of the Paris climate accord, which has been signed by 196 nations, Trump said: “I’m looking at it very closely. I have an open mind to it.”

      […]

      Questioned over the link between human activity and global warming, Trump said: “I think there is some connectivity. Some, something. It depends on how much.” He added that he was thinking about how the issue “will cost our companies”.

      […]

      The election of an apparent climate change denier to the US presidency has caused consternation among scientists and overseas climate negotiators, but some have voiced hope that Trump will follow a more pragmatic path that will avoid political fallout over the issue.

      In Trump’s recent pronouncements on his first 100 days in power he has pledged to cancel money for climate change programs and lift restrictions upon fossil fuel exploration on public land, but made no mention of quitting the Paris deal.

      Michael Brune, executive director of Sierra Club, said of his latest comments: “Talk is cheap, and no one should believe Donald Trump means this until he acts upon it. We’re waiting for action, and Trump is kidding nobody on climate as he simultaneously stacks his transition team and cabinet with climate science deniers and the dirtiest hacks the fossil fuel industry can offer. Prove it, president-elect. The world is watching.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/donald-trump-paris-climate-deal-change-open-mind

      Considering the fact that he can’t simply withdraw from the meaningless agreement, it kind of makes sense to be “looking at it very closely” and “have an open mind to it.” Rather than withdrawing, he could send it to the Senate for ratification as a treaty, where it will fall about 25 votes shy of the required 2/3 majority, or he could simply ignore it.

      • Actually, based on comments here by lawyers familiar with the U.S. practice, Trump can simply withdraw the U.S. from the COP21 Agreement simply by issuing an Executive Order, although perhaps the more elegant (and final) way of doing so would be to submit the agreement for ratification to the Senate, which of course would vote it down. As the agreement only commits the United States to submit periodic statements of how it is addressing climate change and to participate in the Green Climate Fund (with no agreement the allocation of the fund either by donors or recipients), it is possible to ignore the agreement and regularly submit a statement of what the U.S. is doing to promote research and to encourage energy efficiency. There is, in any case, very little chance that a Trump Administration with Republican-dominated House and Senate will pay billions into the Green Climate Fund. Ergo, the developing countries where almost all the emissions growth is occurring will not finance actions to reduce emissions and COP21 is futile anyway.

  28. Can Hillary be pardoned prior to be convicted, or can a US president give someone a blank get out of jail card to be redeemed at a later date? (I live in the UK where such things can not happen)

      • The important thing to keep in mind on the Nixon pardon is that Nixon was disgraced by having to resign.

        Hillary and Bill have not been disgraced and they have that coming.

        There are people who are still saying she did nothing wrong. These are the true deniers.

        I would be satisfied after we get a thorough investigation and a listing of all the charges from her actions on the server and the Clinton Foundation. The list could be quite long. That might just shut up the Clinton defenders.

        Both Clintons must be publicly disgraced for what they did so people won’t listen to them anymore.

        After leaving office even Nixon managed to recover some of his reputation. I offer the same to the Clintons.

        I can live with them being pardoned after we get a full listing of the charges.

      • “Both Clintons must be publicly disgraced for what they did so people won’t listen to them anymore.”

        I like that idea. We want everyone to know just how morally bankrupt Bill and Hillary Clinton are.

    • Actions speak louder than words…

      This would mean the elimination of Nasa’s world-renowned research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena. Nasa’s network of satellites provide a wealth of information on climate change, with the Earth science division’s budget set to grow to $2bn next year. By comparison, space exploration has been scaled back somewhat, with a proposed budget of $2.8bn in 2017.

      Advertisement

      Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said there was no need for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.

      Considering the fact that NOAA and the USGS missions include Earth Science and NASA is the National Astronautics and Space Administration, people should be asking, “Why in the Hell was NASA spending taxpayer dollars on “research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena”?

      • NASA, under contract to other agencies and private industry, can deliver and maintain space-based hardware. Manipulating climate data is not in its remit.

  29. I think all those self-interested government departments are snowing him. He must fire them all; return NASA to aeronautic and space exploration and limit all climate work to NOAA – and reduce NOAA’s budget.

    I can just now see how all those bureaucrat-scientist-political whores are pleading how vitally important their work is.

  30. Meanwhile away from politics the observed (not modelled) climate continues to show evidence of warming…

    Could we not have an article discussing this, the most extraordinary event in the 37 year history of the sea ice satellite record?

    Trump is going to have to recognise the reality of the situation…

    If his administration investigates NASA records, they’ll just find they represent accurately what’s going on.

    • Okay, I don’t remember where I read it, but apparently the satellite that is measuring this has lost something like 75% of it’s abilities to accurately determine the sea ice. Sorry, I’d love to give you the link, but it was posted by a blogger (I think) on realclimatescience..com (Tony Heller’s blog).

      In essence, the poster (who “seemed” to know what he was talking about), said this data is completely errant and he went into reason why. I’m sorry, I can’t be more helpful, but apparently, that data is for the moment, corrupted.

      • Scott
        Griff’s satellite graph is in line with temp measurements in the Arctic. Some parts have been 20 degrees C warmer than average.

        That is exceptional and backs Griff’s statement that this is “extraordinary.” But it is not only the Arctic. The Antarctic sea ice is also now well below average. Interesting isn’t it that this climate change science site, at time when all the indicators show sustained warming, only wants to talk about politics?

      • Dave Fair
        “Now, Simon calls temporary El Nino effects “sustained warming.”

        Perhaps Dave you can explain to me why this El Nino is warmer than the last major one, which was warmer than the one before? El Nino has no affect on long term warming, it just provides a bit of noise. I mean are you really that blinded by your denial of the warming?

      • To start with:

        About a tenth of a degree C in 18 years? That’s a real big warming trend? Coming out of the Little Ice Age? And models say what?

        About that idea that El Nino has no effect on long term trends, read some Bob Tisdale and get back to me.

      • “Nope, that is an answer long debuncked”

        In that case, you will be able to link to the peer reviewed papers that debunked it, won’t you?

        That doesn’t mean crackpot alarmist blogs such as (un)skepticalscience, (un)realscience or that silly woman with a thing about Hot Whoppers.

      • catweazle666
        Read the article. First graph tells the story. We should be cooling, we are not. There is a good reason.

      • Dave Fair
        “About that idea that El Nino has no effect on long term trends, read some Bob Tisdale and get back to me.”
        I’ve read his stuff. Interesting, but does not change a thing. El Ninos have been happening for ever. They don’t affect the long term warming or cooling. Put them into the data…. you get warming. Take them out… you get warming. Like saying you can lift yourself into the air by pulling on your shoe laces.

      • Dave Fair

        Given you seem to have such a great understanding, why don’t you stop blowing hot air and tell me why I’m wrong?

      • “why don’t you stop blowing hot air and tell me why I’m wrong?”

        Because it would be a total waste of bandwidth.

        He may as well try to teach a goldfish quantum physics.

      • Dave Fair
        “For one, check out the 1977 Pacific Climate Shift”
        So what does that actually mean Dave? Seriously they are just words. Explain it, or give up. And while you are at it, write peer reviewed paper so you can change current thinking on the topic

      • I give you two references to ENSO impacts on climate, Simon, and you give me gratuitous comments. Pal review? Seriously?

      • catweazle666 November 24, 2016 at 6:00 pm
        “why don’t you stop blowing hot air and tell me why I’m wrong?”

        Because it would be a total waste of bandwidth.

        He may as well try to teach a goldfish quantum physics.”
        Well it would help if he actually understood what he is saying instead of parroting gibberish. At least you seem to know you are twisting things.

    • A poster over at realclimatescience.com has said the satellite doing these measurements is something like 75% down and that the data is completely off. Can’t be of anymore help than that. I suppose you could go through recent posts over there? He really seemed to know what he was talking about.

    • Observed, how? Don’t say satellites or you will fail. Oh, you said satellite, you fail! Satellites don’t measure a thing…once you get that, you can get reality!

      • “Observed, how? Don’t say satellites or you will fail. Oh, you said satellite, you fail! Satellites don’t measure a thing…once you get that, you can get reality!”

        Mmmmm, let’s see ….

        “Satellites don’t measure a thing”

        Oh, they don’t?
        In that case we can scrub UAH v6.0 (beta5) and RSS v4.0 Global Mean Temperature “measurements” can we?
        That’ll leave the surface thermometer record then.

        They do calculate stuff however using sensors and algorithms.

        From a logical (if you accept the UAH data), never mind a scientific standpoint, it is you that fails.

      • “Toneb November 23, 2016 at 5:47 am

        They do calculate stuff however using sensors and algorithms.”

        My point exactly!

    • Could we not have an article discussing this, the most extraordinary event in the 37 year history of the sea ice satellite record?
      ============

      Wouldn’t you rather watch grass growing?

      or paint drying… for ten epic hours?

      Why is it about watching ice melt that turns you on, Griff?

    • climate continues to show evidence of warming…</blockquote.
      Good.

      37 year history

      A gnat’s hair of time compared to the age of the earth.
      In the past there was a lot more ice at the N Pole, at other times there was none. In future no doubt there will be more and there will also be none.
      It’s called nature Griff, get over it.

      • Whoops, that went horribly wrong. A bit like Griff’s attempts to get us all worried about nothing.
        Let me try again:

        climate continues to show evidence of warming…

        Good

        37 year history

        A gnat’s hair of time compared to the age of the earth.
        In the past there was a lot more ice at the N Pole, at other times there was none. In future no doubt there will be more and there will also be none.
        It’s called nature Griff, get over it.

    • Lower-than-usual arctic extent in November is “the most extraordinary event in the 37 year history of the sea ice satellite record?” Griff, exactly what sort of dire consequences are you expecting from more open water than usual in the freezing arctic night sky?

      • no. It isn’t a DMI sensor. That meme was exploded days ago.

        That’s real ice data from a real working satellite there.

    • “Meanwhile away from politics the observed (not modelled) climate continues to show evidence of warming…”

      No it doesn’t.

      Stop making stuff up.

    • Looks like the end of the downswing in an approximate 60-year cycle.

      Like I said, Griffie, give it a few more years before you spend more trillions.

      • We have recent research which collected all the ice data going back 150 years… including all the cold war sub records, the soviet data, the whaling ship records, all the met records, etc.

        and there hasn’t been this sort of low event or these low extents in all that time.

        There hasn’t been a temp anomaly like this in records going back nearly 70 years.

        So when you have all finished making excuses (no there is no sensor fault), look at the actual, real data and tell me why arctic sea ice extent uniquely decreased after the start of the freeze, why it is uniquely at this low level and why we are uniquely seeing plus 36 degree F temp anomaly at a time when it is dark over the arctic…

        (I say uniquely -let’s qualify that as ‘uniquely in 150 years’)

        If it isn’t warming or is a cycle or its cooling, you can come up with some real evidence based on scientific observation as to why these events are transpiring, right?

      • The Arctic seems to produce adequate amounts of ice every winter. Give it a few years before panicking, Griffie. A couple of decades does not a climate make.

      • Dave Fair November 24, 2016 at 11:14 am
        “The Arctic seems to produce adequate amounts of ice every winter. Give it a few years before panicking, Griffie. A couple of decades does not a climate make.”
        So when will you think there is no longer an “adequate” amount of sea ice Davie? When will you be concerned this trend is going to continue? Can I suggest it will probably be late before you are honest enough to admit it to yourself.

      • The “trend” in summer Arctic ice flattened out ten years ago, Simon. Find a better “Look! Squirrel!”

        Too late to do exactly what, Simon?

  31. The only areas where humanity is affecting climate temperatures are localised UHI and data manipulation. On the scale of ‘global’ warming, we’re contributing 9/8 of sweet FA. People should have the courage to stand up and say so rather than hedging their bets with claims of modest impacts. After 30 years and untold $billions there is STILL no empirical proof whatsoever of the positive feedbacks required to drive runaway warming temperatures. We contribute nothing to global temperatures.

  32. There is at least the potential here for Trump to properly open the debate again after Obama tried to shut it down with his ‘settled science’, ‘flat earth society meeting’ hysterical rhetoric. For Trump to say he is ‘looking closely’ at it means that at some point he will have to justify his position and present the findings of his close looking, thereby unleashing the sceptical scientists into the full media glare. There won’t be any more little Gavin scampering off stage to hide from the debate in the wings with his comforter.

    Not only that but the whole mitigation vs prevention economic and logistical debate gets opened up and it’s a debate the blob simply cannot win. There are plenty of World class scientist at the top of their games who can provide a watertight case against climate alarmism and unless someone has conclusive empirical evidence to undermine that position then Trump can only be viewed as justified.

    The media will of course howl and scream but they are currently at the very nadir of their credibility ratings and will once again be exposed as the leftist propaganda mouthpieces they really are.

    Possibly an overoptimistic scenario but we can always hope …

  33. Of course it was plausible that manmade CO2 emissions affected climate but we already did the experiment and collected the data and that data largely refutes the hypothesis.

    The trouble is that it all morphed from a science matter into a social justice issue so it doesn’t matter what the data says any more. If it were possible to get journalists & scientivists to grasp that far more harm than good is being done by climate policy….Alas there is no grown-up debate any more, just playground name-calling of anyone who disagrees with the fashionable neo-puritan memes.

    Trump delights in appearing to be maverick but he’s a deal-maker at heart. In effect the Paris agreement is to limit temperature rise and according to the data you can achieve that just by business as usual. The real requirement is to clear out the luddite, anti-growth environmentalist deadwood from positions of influence so that sane believers and disbelievers of manmade climate change can amicably disagree but still reach a sensible common purpose rather than continuing to throw money down the drain.

  34. I agree as also mentioned here earlier. The cause of Fossil fuel emissions in our climate can only be defined if we reduce large uncertainties on climate relating to natural causes. We are not yet able to understand that extent about natural causes and hence the huge role of CO2 as claimed can never be true. It is as simple as that.The most saddening part is that major policies are in place based on that theory, that involves a huge sum of money. It deviates the genuine need of the society.

  35. I believe there’s to be a conference of some sort re de-bunking the global warming myth (Griffiths website [chap that wrote ” World Without Cancer: the story of vitamin B17″]) should be interesting if you’ve got spare dosh for attending in person or via video link.

  36. Can I as an outsider who has read a lot about Trump and watched the three debates say that:-
    1 I never expected him to go after Hillary for two reasons (i) it could happen to him after he finishes as president and (ii) I saw a photo of the two Clintons Trump and one of his wives all laughing and clearly socialising together only a few years ago suggesting they had more in common that they had differences at a personal level.
    This made me think some of his electioneering stances were just political razzle-dazzle. He is not the first to seek public office who has resorted to that.
    2 On torture Trump said he had changed his mind because he became convinced you could could not rely on “confessions ” as tortured people may say what they think the torturer wants to hear
    His mind was changed by discussion with the retired General whom he is considering for Secretary of Defense who apparently persuaded Trump that torture was neither effective nor reliable
    If so then so much the better in that it shows he is prepared to listen to expertise and learn.
    On the climate lets wait and see before jumping at shadows – but what no 2 above does suggest is that climate skeptics need to be there advising him lest others do

    • waterboarding is not torture and we never asked for confessions :) we asked for specific information which we then checked and if they lied :) … well the process started again … which we never had to do more than once …

    • “1. I never expected him to go after Hillary for two reasons (i) it could happen to him after he finishes as president”

      Good point. And it really looks bad if a sitting president starts prosecuting the leader of the opposition. That’s what happens in third-world authoritarian regimes. The optics would be horrible, and probably harm U.S. national security by putting out an image of a nation in political chaos. We want our enemies to think we are strong and united, not divided.

      Hillary will get her just punishment some day, I feel sure. Trump doesn’t need to get personally involved in it any more than possible.

  37. Trump was in a hostile room and as always wants to control the stories … so rather than give the NYT negative red meat (kill the Paris Accord, Lock up Hillary) he moderated his answers … bingo nothing negative for the NYT to write about … everyone having a kneejerk reaction to this should think back to the last 5 times they had a kneejerk reaction to a Trump action and remember they where wrong …

  38. While many here are confident that the President-Elect is simply treading softly while working on the Transition, and is still determined to kill the ‘climate change’ octopus, I am nervous.

    Back during the campaign I became convinced that The Trump (as I call him) was enormously competent; see my post here: https://walkingcreekworld.wordpress.com/2016/08/25/trumped-by-the-trump/

    But it was also becoming evident from the beginning that he was immensely ignorant, easily swayed by the last person he talks to, and given to saying whatever his audience wants to hear. This makes it hard to know what he thinks about a subject, or even whether he thinks about it at all. The NYT liberals want to be reassured that he accepts the Climate liturgy, that man does affect climate (adversely), so Donald tells them he does. But what does he really think? And will he in the end cozy up to the octopus, leaving it and its worldwide tentacles untouched?

    I do think the President-Elect can be educated. In another thread, I suggested an Open Letter, from a host of distinguished scientists who are also skeptics. How about a delegation of scientists and former astronauts to Trump Tower? Mr Trump campaigned on killing the octopus and cutting off its tentacles. Now is the time to make it clear that he will be applauded for doing so, not just here in the USA, but in the developing world that is starved for cheap, abundant energy.

    /Mr Lynn

    • I agree that the more Trump is made aware of the huge Worldwide support for Kraken slaying the better but I doubt there is much doubt that he intends to do so anyway. Trump is a businessman and he knows full well that the co2 eco madness is about as disastrous a thing for US business as it could possibly be. I’m sure he’ll do a bit of slalom along the way but be assured that he fully intends to go slap bang through the middle of that final gate and at considerable speed.

  39. To many environmentalists, if humans are changing anything, in a measurable way, it’s evil and must be stopped.
    So to them, if we say that this is not a problem we need to worry about, they interpret it as us saying humans have no impact on the environment.
    To them, admitting that we have an impact on the environment is tantamount to declaring that we have to do something about it.

  40. Does human activity affect local temperatures? Hell yes. Do human cities affect local temperatures, wind, and humidity? Hell yes. Local weather can be impacted upon by human presence. No need for a scientist to tell us this. In fact, humans do it on purpose for their benefit ever since they discovered how to use fire and build shelters.

    Do humans affect climate? Hell no. Should humans be afraid of warm climates? Hell no. Should humans be afraid of cold climates? Hell yes.

    Don’t mitigate warming climate change. In fact plant and harvest like there is no tomorrow to store up vast quantities of food, especially at the peak of that warmth. And then plan on moving some countries south or just letting them figure out how to live on ice sheets.

    This article is a good resource to think about all the things that changed in a cyclic way on Earth during the past 800,000 years. And there is absolutely no reason to think this cycle will not continue. I have said many times that I believe the confounding factor in all of this is the slow inertia of cyclic oceanic net absorption and net evaporation of solar-sourced heat explains this pattern as long as ocean currents remain as they are and continental placement remains as it is. We will experience more ice sheet advances followed by brief returns to warmth. How many more of these we will experience I do not know. Eventually drifting land masses will change ocean currents thus changing the pattern we are in. By then, humans may be extinct. Or not. We could be as robust to the cyclic up and down as cock roaches. But only if we are as capable as cock roaches are in surviving such cold periods. The downside to that is that cock roaches likely survived by being able, as a species, to absorb a tremendous die off without leading to extinction. But then, life is hard.

    http://epic.awi.de/20014/1/Wol2009a.pdf

      • Keeping it simple, water vapor comes from water. I don’t peg increased water vapor on something little, like the tiny bit of increased atmospheric temperature. Water vapor increase has to be sourced from something big. And oceans are big. Oceans are made of water. When ocean surface temps are warmer than air temps, net evaporation happens. Increase is therefore from net ocean evaporation, most likely centered in the equatorial band. Rise in sea level is most likely due to expansion related to warm water at the surface, not the tail end of ice melt.

      • Pam – The oceans have always been big and their contribution of water vapor with its absorption of terrestrial EMR has made the planet warm enough for life. Fine as long as average global WV remains constant. However, the observation is WV has been increasing. NASA/RSS have been measuring it via satellite since 1988 and report monthly. Willis graphed the data into 2016. I have extended it graphically through Sept 2016 in my blog and include links to the source data. A ‘big’ source contributing to the ongoing measured WV increase is the 2.5E15 kg/yr for world irrigation. If only about 1% of this stays in the air it accounts for the WV increase.

      • Dan, you are thinking locally and on a very fine scale. The current changes in WV you speak of that may or not be related to irrigation are just tiny, even invisible wriggles confined to the top of a warm period. These wriggles mean nothing in terms of the larger scale 800,000 year cyclical swing.

      • Pam – I am looking at global. I got the irrigation stuff from here: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/didyouknow/index3.stm

        Water vapor increase reported by NASA/RSS has a lot of scatter but the trend shows a fairly steady increase since they started measuring it in about 1987, A graph (Fig 3) and links to the data are in my blog.

        Willis and Anthony are presenting Willis’ assessment of the WV increase at AGU meeting https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/03/willis-and-i-are-presenting-at-agus-fall-meeting-assistance-requested-from-wuwt-readers/

  41. While waiting for my last innocuous post to clear moderation and further on the subject of Trump, I believe he has a duty to at least make some sort of effort towards draining the academic swamp along with all of the other vermin infested, flyblown swamps. As everyone here knows it is extraordinarily difficult to have work pass peer review and be published in the journals which does not explicitly support the cagw party line. Furthermore if you press in a different direction because that’s where the science leads you then your career is probably forfeit unless you are a heavyweight indeed.

    There needs to be a freeing up of academics to publish work without fear of reprisals from left controlled academia and the blob in general and funding available for research into natural climate change. For my money there ought to be an independent watchdog to whom a scientist could appeal if they consider that they and their work are being unfairly stifled, bullied, threatened and so forth. It needs to be made absolutely plain that political interference in the workings of research will not be tolerated for any reason whatsoever and those attempting to politically pervert the course of science need to be shown the door themselves.

    • What is cancelling NASA, NOAA, EPA research if its not political interference in research?

      There is no evidence whatever of anyone being stopped from publishing on climate

  42. “What I find most fascinating about this media circus, is the media response to the “revelation” that Trump thinks humans contribute to climate change.”

    This is the least surprising thing of all. This is how they operate. They pretend that climate change has one definition, when it in fact has two. This is a deliberate decision by some and missed by most.

    Climate Change – the scientific definition includes both natural and anthropogenic portions. It basically says that the climate will change over time.

    Climate Change – the political definition includes only anthropogenic climate change and this change is dangerous and therefore requires impactful policy decisions.

  43. Trump’s stated top priorities are job creation and GDP growth. Those will require abundant, cheap energy, unfettered by the EPA Clean Power rules. His choice for EPA chief is probably the worst possible nightmare for the warmistas, and he has been tasked with “reorganizing” EPA. His closest adviser Bannon is an avowed “economic nationalist”. Do I need to spell it out for anyone? The hand-wringing media are grasping at straws here, and Trump is having the time of his life gaming them. Let’s sit back and enjoy it.

  44. Remember, the press’s job now is to destroy Trump. First, they must isolate him from his followers. So pretty much everything they tell you from now on will be lies and spin… not that this should surprise people on this board, but I think this election has proven we have been more right about the press than we even dared to admit.

    Watch what Trump does. Ignore what they tell us.

  45. Donald Trump is very clever and has effectively gelded the fourth and fifth estates. Well overdue and a treat to watch!

  46. Whatever the US will do to fight climate change will never be enough for the alarmists, and whatever the Paris signatories do won’t come close to having a significant effect on the warming that’s supposedly occurring. Since this agreement is purely non-binding, it amounts to nothing more than a list of promises.

    • Quote *Since this agreement is purely non-binding, it amounts to nothing more than* piss and wind.
      There corrected that for you.

Comments are closed.