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 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 …
Fox News…”Donald Trump’s Media Summit Was a ‘F—ing Firing Squad'”
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/11/22/donald-trumps-media-summit-was-f-ing-firing-squad
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.
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.
Can you imagine if ants had a section of their society that worried about how ants were affecting their world? Ant hills are tremendously complex and most definitely change the local climate, including causing increasing temperatures. Demo-Watermelon ants, at this very moment, are marching in the tunnels with placards shouting warnings of impending doom unless controls on population and construction bring utopia to the ants. Ants will live in nature without the evil ant hill and its environmental harm to mother earth. And jaws will be made useless, most likely with little flowers stuck in the serrated ends of their jaws so they can’t use them to kill or chew up the Earth anymore.
http://www.bluebird-electric.net/artificial_intelligence_autonomous_robotics/Robots_Hexapods_Insects_Animatronics/Ants_Jaws_Bite_Teeth_Mandibles_Pincers.htm
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
Pam – My calcs show about 1/3 of the water vapor increase (since about 1987) is due to average global temperature increase. What do you think is causing the other 2/3 increase in this most important ghg? Graph of increase with links to NASA/RSS source data are at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
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/
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
You don’t Telegraph your moves when the other guy is still in charge.
“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.
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.
Ever heard of a head fake?
Moi?
I’m still waiting to hear how he will do anything for the US coal mining/power industries…
S&P published a report saying there was nothing practical he could do, in the face of shale gas replacing coal power generation – indeed Trump’s plans for shale would displace even more coal
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.
Donald Trump is very clever and has effectively gelded the fourth and fifth estates. Well overdue and a treat to watch!
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.