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;
…
Tom Friedman asks if Trump will withdraw from climate change accords. Trump: “I’m looking at it very closely. I have an open mind to it."
— Michael M. Grynbaum (@grynbaum) November 22, 2016
…
"I might have brought it up," Trump says of Farage meeting and wind farms.
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) November 22, 2016
…
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.
Does Trump think human activity is linked to climate change? “I think there is some connectivity. Some, something. It depends on how much."
— Michael M. Grynbaum (@grynbaum) November 22, 2016
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.
Trump can say whatever he wants, all that matters is what actions he actually takes once in office. His positions posted to his campaign site are very informative as to what they might be.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/energy/
Yes, and Lomborg thinks dumping the Paris Accord is the right thing to do.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/11/22/lomborg-lucidity/
Trump is, again, playing the media and his opponents. You’d think that after a long career in the entertainment business, a long primary season and and brutal campaign season where the media has been set up repeatedly that they’d learn. It’s almost like watching replays of the Aesop’s Scorpion and Frog with each saying “it’s in my nature”.
Despite all the campaign rhetoric about putting Hillary in jail, Trump has already declared that she won’t be prosecuted.
Trump is quite capable of dumping any campaign pledge that becomes inconvenient.
The media (NYT) actually falsely reported Trump’s comments. Media falsely spins Trump’s NYT climate comments – Trump cited Climategate, restated skepticism of ‘global warming’ – full transcript: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/23/fake-news-update-media-falsely-spins-trumps-climate-comments-read-full-nyt-transcript/
Thanks for that transcript, Eric. I found this quote from it interesting:
“Trump cites correctly Climategate scandal: ‘They say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between scientists…Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about.”
As usual, the Leftwing Media is doing all they can to undermine Trump and in this case they are twisting his words to discourage his supporters.
Humpty Trumpty sat on a wall (before election)
Humpty Trumpty had a great fall (after election)
And all Nigel’s (Farage) horses and all Nigel’s men
can’t get his hairdo in order again.
I would say you are a little premature there, Henning.
Rubbish from yet another poor loser.
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!!
Trumpophobia
For some, this is a Trumpocalypse.
Well, so far we have had “Trexit”. Let’s just hope he follows through.
“trumpeny”
– archaic
noun –
1. Attractive articles of little value or use
adjective –
2. showy but worthless
Er – we use trumpery for the same.
Auto
Indeed, auto…indeed.
So long as Myron Ebell is left to his work restructuring the EPA all will be well.
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
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.
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.
“… 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.
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.
Will he offer climate science some form of trial? Climate scientists never offered CO2 a fair trial before finding it guilty.
They had given it a life sentence before the IPCC was even set up.
“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.
Here’s the current AP headline:
Trump Changes His Tune on Climate Change, Jailing Clinton
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.
This is most of the problem with the left in general:
===> activist riot mode <===
IMO Trump certainly will not sanction any agreement that disadvantages the US economy particularly in relation to China.
Please don’t tell us that Neil deGrasse Tyson ( he with the AGW crotch grab) got an “interview” with Trump.
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.
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.
Ms. Moore, if you cannot influence Mr. Watts, how would any of us peons be able to?
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.
It might help if the Tips and Notes got cleaned up.
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
I love Pat Frank’s calculation of uncertainty – easy to follow, devastating evaluation of the usefulness of climate models.
“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.
Thank you for responding, Eric.
Thank you, Anthony, for letting me know.
Published – https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/22/the-needle-in-the-haystack-pat-franks-devastating-expose-of-climate-model-error/
Anthony did cover this IIRC
Great lecture, thanks for the link.
…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
…OK, just to be safe, I won’t make any more comments…Merry Christmas…LOL
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…
Some critics of the climate “emergency” are politically liberal, they believe in benevolent big government and strong social safety nets. I suspect both sides of politics have their failure modes, sadly the mainstream liberal movement seems to currently be trapped trapped in such a failure mode.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/12/freeman-dyson-democrat-supporter-climate-skeptic/
Maybe there are “great / good liberals” (I think I know a few), but Progressives?
“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.
It sounds like Trump changed his position on torture.
Trump says he has been convinced torture is not effective.
I suspect in a few years the horror of new techniques for breaking the will of terrorist will completely supersede old debates about traditional methods of torture. Its only a matter of time until intelligence agencies embrace a far more effective means of turning an enemy into a compliant puppet.
http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2008/12/pleasures-perils-why-sex-chip-may-not.html
As usual, science fiction has been there first.
“Its only a matter of time until intelligence agencies embrace a far more effective means of turning an enemy into a compliant puppet.”
Been about for years – decades even.
Repeated barely sub-lethal doses of amphetamines and barbiturates cause utter disorientation much more effectively than administering physical pain, and in a much shorter time.
catweazle666 commented
Would you mind expounding please, when you get a chance.
Zeke: “Would you mind expounding please, when you get a chance.”
The use of sodium pentothal (a barbiturate) and scopolamine (an alkaloid) are widely known.
Here are a couple of links:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol5no2/html/v05i2a09p_0001.htm
https://federalist.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/chemical-interrogation-for-counter-terrorism/
Here is a reference to the use of the amphetamine/barbiturate combination.
http://www.alternet.org/story/13341/truth_serums_%26_torture
@ur momisugly catweazle. I will have a look at those links. Many many thanks.
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.
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.
“their brains in limbo” has the media or a liberal ever had their brains any other place?
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)
Soros-funded 501C4’s are funneling money to the protests.
Please provide objective evidence of this allegation.
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
Steve, Thank you for a very well explained rebuttal to the anti-pipeline claims.
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.
I don’t believe the New York Times.
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?
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.
“I would have said a Stradivari violin”
Probably a generational thing.
@ur momisugly 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).
{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…..
David ==> See my response to Janice.
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.
Okay. Apparently I am on m0der@ation. This is a test. Janice
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.
hey JM, i did find the vid and looked at it again, so thanks.
Thank you for that, sybot (a). Much appreciated. And it got posted by Eric, here!: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/22/the-needle-in-the-haystack-pat-franks-devastating-expose-of-climate-model-error/
#(:))
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
So far the human connectivity if any is too small to measure because fossil fuel emissions are overwhelmed by large uncertainties in natural flows.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2873672
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.
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…
If he folds on climate we are all done.
His EPA transition head is an indication of where he is going. Calm down and frack on.
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.
Relax cupcake.
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.