Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
An article in the Huffington Post titled Crooked science finds a friend in Trump” is an attempt to counter the exposure of the global warming deception that will occur with the new President. All it does is expose the willful ignorance of the author and by association the publisher. It also reflects similar activities in the deliberate deception about global warming. The opening statement of the article is sufficient exposure.
“From the same people who told you that cigarettes were perfectly healthy: Mercury in our food is just fine, too. Smog in the air? No problem. To top it off — we don’t need to do a thing about climate pollution, either. And let’s just get rid of NASA’s world class research on our own dear earth’s systems. Who needs it?”
It is not the same people who said tobacco was healthy. This is an apparent reference to the early attempt to link Fred Singer to the tobacco industry. Fred wrote a critical review of the terrible research in the original article claiming to link cancer to second-hand smoke. His review was later supported by others. Environmentalists used to claim Fred was paid by the tobacco companies and in favor of smoking. In fact, Fred has always actively and openly opposed smoking. The real story is that misuse of evidence or misrepresenting what was actually said is apparently acceptable in the campaign to silence global warming skeptics and latterly climate change deniers.
The mercury and smog references are similar and typical unsubstantiated references whose only purpose is to raise fears and distract from the truth. CO2 is not a pollutant but a necessary gas for the survival of plants and animals. The truth was always available, but deliberately suppressed. The author would avoid such misrepresentations with due diligence, but that was apparently overridden by a political bias. Now the complete story will be told by the Trump administration and the exploitation of climate for a political agenda will end. All the massive funding going to bureaucrats and environmental groups will cease. Their moral high ground will be gone and the ordinary people who looked right through the media and voted for Trump, will see the extent of the lying and deception. I know they had their suspicions because many told me after presentations, but now they will be confirmed. They will be very angry and my major concern is that they don’t totally reject the necessary concept of environmentalism. The lies and deceptions promulgated in the Huffington Post article and thousands like them over the last 40 years may result in self-proclaimed environmentalists destroying environmentalism.
The Huffington Post author’s attempt at sarcasm by the reference to NASA falls absolutely flat. It shows ignorance either because the author did not do proper research or chose to ignore the truth or both. NASA, the space agency, is being blamed for the actions of those who controlled the sub agency known as NASA GISS. This malfeasance and denigration of the space agency because of the political use of climate was so outrageous that 50 former NASA astronauts combined to bring the issue to public attention.
A short list of the of events explain why the astronauts took their unprecedented action. It also shows why the Huffington Post article is completely wrong to suggest NASA GISS ‘science’ is accurate, trustworthy, and adequate as the basis of draconian energy and environmental policy.
NASA GISS was set up as an agency to examine issues related to space exploration. The diversion to the political agenda of global warming began when Senator Timothy Wirth plucked James Hansen from a low level position at NASA GISS to appear before the 1988 hearing.
… I don’t remember exactly where the data came from, but we knew there was this scientist at NASA who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So we called him up and asked him if he would testify. Now, this is a tough thing for a scientist to do when you’re going to make such an outspoken statement as this and you’re part of the federal bureaucracy. Jim Hansen has always been a very brave and outspoken individual.”
James Hansen became Director of NASA GISS, probably with the political influence of Wirth and Gore. He was politically active throughout his career in contradiction to the Hatch Act that limits such activity. For example he was arrested outside the White House for protesting coal plants. He flew to England to give testimony in a trial against six Greenpeace activists who bombed a power plant, but were found not guilty partly on his testimony?
Under Hansen and his successor Gavin Schmidt temperature records were altered, but always to accentuate warming. Director Gavin Schmidt was a significant part of the leaked email scandal from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and identified by Wegman in the section of his Report to Congress titled “SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS OF AUTHORSHIPS IN TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTION.”. This remarkable part of the Wegman Report took sociological research techniques to identify and explain the small coterie of people that were closely linked and isolated in producing the science to fill the political agenda of the IPCC.
NASA GISS under Hansen and Schmidt became central to the myth created by the IPCC that human CO2 was causing global warming. This occurred despite the fact their predictions were consistently wrong and they tried to make the data fit their political objective. The only place where a CO2 increase causes warming is in the computer models of the IPCC. Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts challenged this computer generated data that was presented as real data by the bureaucrats who created and promoted it. Roberts was, to my knowledge, the first politician to challenge those bureaucrats directly by demanding empirical evidence, that is real data with established and defined physical explanations.
NASA did marvelous things that inspired America and the World. They saw the auxiliary branch of NASA GISS hijacked for the global warming political agenda of Senator Wirth, Al Gore and others. Wirth knew what he was doing wasn’t science because Michael Fumento writing in Science Under Siege in 1993 quoted him saying,
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Evidence is emerging mostly through the Internet that it is the wrong science deliberately created to push the wrong thing in terms of policy and environment is emerging. It is also clear that it survived because bureaucrats and the mainstream media, such as the Huffington Post, perpetuated the lies. This article, triggered by the panic created by a few politicians obtaining positions where they can end run them, exposes the extent to which they went to ignore, misrepresent, or misunderstand the truth. As Shakespeare had Lancelot say in the Merchant of Venice, “the truth will out”. The quote and story is more than appropriate because Lancelot chose, in a cruel trick to fool his blind father by telling him that his son was dead, was eventually exposed.
This parallels the cruel deception that Senator Wirth and the mainstream media created when they promoted science as accurate when he really believed it didn’t matter as long as it achieved the political objective. The deception was as willful as that demonstrated in the Huffington Post article.
For the record, I am firmly against cigarette smoking – both of parents died from smoking related diseases – Anthony Watts
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Great post – thanks Anthony.
…and Dr. Tim Ball
The NASA-directed letter was signed by only a few astronauts. Most signers were engineers, scientists, and higher-level managers, all of whom spent careers in the space program achieving what was one of the technical high-points of US endeavors.
Thanks for that correction Don. The heroic individual risks taken by astronauts is not to be belittled but they are a tiny part of the incredible achievement of landing on the moon using the technology available at the time. It is important that it was the technical experts in science and engineering that were protesting the degradation of the NASA reputation by phoney activist-scientists.
Trump Induced Panic (TIP)
We’ve reached the TIPping point. 🙂
very clever…I might use it
I have PTSD … Post Trump-election Schadenfreude Delight.
‘Fraid that one has a tautology…
‘Freude’ means ‘delight’, ‘joy’ etc.
PTSD
Post Trump Selection Disorder
Ingy,
You mean I can’t delight in my delight?
I’m sure they’d have Post Trump Science Disregard
Being realistic…
About the Left’s cynicism, not post-Trump.
GoatGuy
“‘Fraid that one has a tautology…
‘Freude’ means ‘delight’, ‘joy’ etc.”
Is that like “ATM Machine”? Redundantly redundant.
What about “hot water heater?”
I think you miss George Carlin, too.
Dear Wattsupwithtnat.com Contribtors,
Your writing, research and erudition are an inspiration to your fellow journeyers in the Enegy Wild West (aka the US). You are quoted by me often.
Steve
P.S. And I would remiss if I forgot to thank the biggest promoter of global energy sanity, Anthony Watts.
Steve,
If you are one of the many 1,000’s of Americans and Canadians who put on their work boots on every morning, morning after morning, to ensure our energy future, and bring home a decent paycheck, no matter your role…
I salute you.
Joel,
USAF retired.
Energy?
It was pretty clear when chief propagandist Schmidt succeeded Hansen that the messaging was far more important than the science supporting the message. I see it as a case of petty revenge on Hansen’s part for when the Regan and first Bush administration called him a lunatic for his alarmism. Unfortunately for science, Hansen found an ally in Gore and climate science broke as a result.
Gavin Schmidt is trained in applied mathematics. I’ve never seen him display the thinking of a scientist.
Normally I wouldnt care about “credentials” in terms of the validity of an argument made by someone. However, Gavin”s education most certainly explains some of his actions and claims. I believe logic is innate (in a sense), but proper application of the rigors of science is learned through training. Gavin seems not to have had this training.
Being good at mathematics doesn’t mean you are a good thinking scientist. It just means you are good at mathematics.
I do both, reasonably well. My mathematics helps me get the correct result. My physics helps me understand what’s going on.
I only mix them when I really need to know how much of what is going on.
G
We should start a pool for which day Gavin will resign. I’m going with January 22nd, 2017.
To pick up on what george e. smith says, mathematics deals with situations in which information required for reaching a conclusion is complete Science deals with situations in which this information is incomplete.
Nice. So the progressives want to get all science-y, and jump on the case of Big Money trying to make money off of harming us.
How about the risk of premature birth for those women who previously had an abortion?
How about birth control pills and subsequent cancer?
No, those sacred cows won’t be mentioned.
The Huffington Post science writers don’t seem to know about the “key to science” as defined by Richard Feynman. I read their articles, and they are never backed up by science.
The Puff Ho is right up there with the Grauniad for unbiased “reporting.” Everything they post reads like a rant. Would love to see their clicks decrease!
CAGW is only a part of the larger green movement, and should not be considered apart from the whole mind-set. It is just the latest exhibit in their program, which always seems to have the same remedies to whatever problem they are currently pushing–Luddite Arcadian Socialism. One must keep the peons in their proper place!/sarc
It’s pre-emptive blame avoidance. They quickly and nastily point the finger elsewhere to avoid being targeted by people just like themselves. Mental/personality/emotional disorder or something.
Is that a real thing? Those don’t sound like they belong together.
It is a part of believing five impossible things before breakfast. CO2 is bad, but any solution to the problem, like nukes, is even worse. . . .
If they’re one thing ‘progressives’ can’t stand, it’s Progress. Socialism has no place in a post-industrial society. Why do I need socialists to tell me what to do if I have a 3D printer in my basement that can make whatever I want? They’re so used to the power they have that they’re terrified of progress making them obsolete.
History is passing them by, and their only chance is to send us back to Year Zero. Fortunately. Trump has given us at least four more years to stave off their attempts to do so.
They don’t, in reality, but as an utopian dream they make sense.
“Crooked science finds a friend in Trump” –Huffington Post
From the same people who told you that Clinton had the election sewed up.
Huffington Post and due diligence in the same text? Does not compute.
Dr. Ball writes:
The only place where a CO2 increase causes warming is in the computer models of the IPCC.
Let’s call that a testable hypothesis. After spending more than $100 billion trying to verify that hypothesis, no empirical evidence has been found to support it.
The obvious question: how many more tax dollars should be spent on that wild goose chase? Another $100,000,000,000?
Cost/benefit analysis? The cost is clear. Where is the benefit?
Excellent point, but the cost is much more than 100 Billion, because of belief in the hypothesis, significantly much more $$$ has been spent in the quest for renewable energy sources by the government(s), companies, and individuals (in the form of increased electricity and transportation fuels) .
The President’s report to Congress onClimate change indicates that the government alone is spending about $20 Billion every year (over many years) based on a HYPOTHESIS! https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
This is why TERM LIMITS are desperately needed so that ideologues of any nature cannot get rooted and perpetuate dogmatic thinking forever in the Senate or House (if POTUS only gets 2 kicks at the can, then the same should be for the other legislators) – then we wouldn’t be in this fine mess…
I’m in favor of your suggestion – but I don’t think it will deal with the real problem, the bureaucrats. They are the ones that impose their agenda cloaked by immunity from the will of the people. No one elected Hansen. Elected officials aid and abet bureaucrats but they are able to endure most over turnings of administration because our two parties are, in fact, two peas in a pod. It remains to be seen if the ‘outsider elect’ is something other than one more pea in the shell game that is politics. God, how I hope he is. God help us if he isn’t.
When legislative term limits were introduced in California, there were hopes that the influence of entrenched interests, and political cronyism would be reduced. Instead, the outgoing legislators, just groomed clones of themselves to succeed them. The problem has only gotten worse, as California is now closer to one-party rule than ever.
I agree. Term limits for legislators does nothing about staffers and consultants, let alone lobbyists. To borrow a line from Andrew Greeley, the person who said patriotism was the last refuge of scoundrels never encountered reform.
We even have a Governor who as attorney general claimed he could ignore the Constitutional (CA) limit of governors to two terms, so he is now on his fourth and illegal term as our governor.
G
I don’t like term limits. If I have a good representative, I want to keep that person as long as they will serve.
The problem is not my crook, it’s the other guys crook.
How about a variation on the Articles of Confederation’s restriction that no delegate to Congress could serve more than 3 of any 6 consecutive years? In this case, simply say that you can’t serve consecutive terms in the same office (but you can come back as long as the people wish for non-consecutive terms).
I call it The Grover Cleveland Amendment. To cover the case where someone fills out an unexpired term to which someone else was elected, it simply says “No person who shall have attained the office of President, Senator, or Representative, with at least a year of the term thereof remaining, shall be eligible to serve the next-consecutive term of that same office.”
That way we can get people to “come up for air” rather than staying in the same job for decades.
I prefer raising the minimum age to something closer to the normal age of retirement.
Have a real career, then when you are ready for something different, try politics.
McGovern is reputed to have changed his mind regarding government regulations when he retired from Congress and tried to help out with his families business.
Perhaps if he’d had the business experience first, he wouldn’t have been so eager to inflict government on the rest of us.
I often think the same, but the only think scarier than a life-long politician is a politician with nothing to lose. At least when re-election is a goal, they are beholden to the will of the people.
when re-election is a goal, they are beholden to the will of the people.
==============
they are beholden to those that contributed $$ to their re-election campaign. the voters are way down the list from there.
Huffington Post, on the morning of election day, had Odds of Winning: Hillary 98.5%, Trump 1.2%. Any news site that posted odds like this for Hillary should immediately go on that “Fake News” list that somebody made up.
That was a useful list, by the way, I got some nice new websites bookmarked now that I hadn’t heard of before.
BTW, I flagged that article as an abusive presentation of alarmist rhetoric as scientific truth and that will mislead their low information readership.
Just wait for the phone call Gavin. It is coming and fairly soon!
Then you might begin to understand marginalisation.as the truth comes out.
The same false allegation of an alliance with tobacco deployed against Fred Singer was also used in the attempt to defame Fredrick Seitz, a prominent physicist and past president of the NAS, when he decried Ben Santer’s false insertions into the 1995 IPCC SAR about a “discernable human influence” on climate.
Here’s a bit of what Seitz wrote, “In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.” More here.
Were Seitz alive today, and given the garbage called consensus climatology that has transpired since 1996, one expects that his descriptive language would be rather more tart than “disturbing corruption.”
Oh, come on people, let’s not go completely over the edge. The earth is warming. The increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is at least a tenable hypothesis for the driver of some of the warming since 1950. It makes sense to take some no-regrets steps to reduce GHG emissions until we can get a better handle on climate sensitivity to AGHGs and all the rest of the climate uncertainties. Climate research should still be funded but with less of an agenda to push one interpretation of the data and suppress all meaningful discussion of alternative hypotheses. Better policies should be developed than building immature technology infrastructure at tax-payer expense. But the risks of poorly predicted warming are too great to ignore or dismiss as fraud, and can only be reduced through better understanding of the basic science.
JMA “The increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is at least a tenable hypothesis for the driver of some of the warming since 1950.
No it’s not.
Tenable scientific hypotheses are testable and falsifiable. A CO2 impact on climate is not.
I said hypothesis, not scientific hypothesis. Call it a guess if you like, but it’s not a wild guess. We have a correlation between warming and GHGs, and possible causation from GHG theory. It remains to understand the system well enough to devise an effective test.
Have you figured “negative feedback” into your GHG theory, JMA?
Yes, there has to be negative feedback in the system somewhere, or the earth would have cooked when CO2 was higher for most of the last 250 my (Berner, 2002). But temperatures in that period are interpreted to have been significantly higher, probably high enough that if we returned to them we’d lose a lot of coastline to rising sea level. Seems a scenario worth avoiding to the extent possible.
Actually, we don’t have a correlation between CO2 and temperature.
If you are unscientific enough to merely take CO2 vs. temperature at one day, and CO2 vs temperature on another day then there has been a change. However if you are actually interested in learning something and plot the two variables over time, you will see that temperature goes up and down while CO2 consistently climbs.
JMA, I don’t know where you are getting your misinformation from, but over the last 250 million years, temperatures have been both higher and much lower than they are today, all while CO2 levels were as much as 10 times higher than today. Not the 20 or 30 percent increases that we are talking about.
@MarkW. Deep time temperatures from Scotese 2002. Pretty qualitative I think. But as I said elsewhere, there are multiple forcers that easily overwhelm the weak climate sensitivity to CO2. Doesn’t mean CO2 can’t have some effect in the right conditions.
No one credible has ever claimed that CO2 has no impact. The evidence is very, very solid that the impact is minimal. There is no evidence to support a belief in a high CO2 sensitivity.
JMA … is this the correlation you referred to?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:1977/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:1977/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1945/to:1977/normalise
“and can only be reduced through better understanding of the basic science.”
Yes, the science needs to be better understood, but primarily by those driving the so called consensus whose understanding has been warped by the accumulated effect from decades of agenda driven bias.
The science of radiating bodies is already well known and the Earth is unambiguously a body radiating energy as a consequence of its temperature. The laws of physics that describe this kind of system just don’t support a high sensitivity and the fear mongering is dependent on an assumed and absurdly high sensitivity. The laws of physics describe a linear and temperature independent sensitivity metric expressed as W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing which measurements put at about 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of post albedo solar forcing and far below the 4.3 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 claimed by the IPCC which they express as the non linear equivalent 0.8C per W/m^2 of forcing in order to obfuscate the obvious flaws. By controlling the language, they can then keep the more transparent metric of sensitivity out of the lexicon so as to maintain confusion.
The only no-regret steps that should be taken are those that stand up in the absence of a high sensitivity. Conservation and increased efficiency are both beneficial when the costs don’t offset any savings. Acting out of fear alone will only result in poor choices like Solyndra and others like them.
“The earth is warming”. Here in my part of fly-over country, the temp is predicted to get to 4 degrees F. tonite.
We are told there has been no warming for nearly 20 years. Please present the evidence for your claim.
Go back a little further, you may notice a trend made up of periodic warming and thermal plateaus. Line these up with the PDO. You’ll see a nice correlation between warming periods and a positive PFO, and plateaus and a negative PDO. The PDO went negative after the 98 El Niño…may account for the recent pause in warming.
Sorry JMA, but the AMO went positive around 1995 and is still positive. So, having a pause with one natural factor positive and one negative is actually not surprising. If anything, I would expect the AMO to be a larger influence given it’s influence on Arctic sea ice.
Let’s rephrase that more appropriately as “the poorly predicted risks of (the purported) warming.” The comparison of the risks of the “purported” warming to the economic cost of the proposed solution is at the heart of the matter. The risks of the “purported” warming are greatly exaggerated, while the economic costs of the proposed solutions to this exaggerated risk runs into the trillions of dollars.
As for fraud, the hockey stick graph is clearly a hoax and, thus, fraudulent. Prior to the hockey stick graph, the greatest hoax in science was Piltdown Man. The so-called missing link was actually the jawbone of what was probably an orangutan attached to a human skull. The hockey stick graph is actually temperature data spliced onto proxy data in order to “hide the decline” of the proxy. Were only the proxy data included on the graph (including the deleted data that showed apparently declining temperatures after 1960 or so), there would have been no alarm about “the risks of poorly predicted warming,” as the proxy data showed no warming.
Sure, there are a lot of lies and fraud associated perpetrated by the alarmists, not to mention disgusting personal and professional attacks on those who disagree with them, but that should not distract us from the awful possibility that there may be an essential truth buried beneath the BS.
Seem to be having trouble posting this comment, so it may turn up in multiples. Anyway, sure, there are a lot of lies and fraud perpetrated by the alarmists, not to mention disgusting personal and professional attacks on those who disagree with them, but that should not distract us from the awful possibility that there may be an essential truth buried beneath the BS.
Just how awful do you believe a temperature rise of a few tenths of a degree is going to be?
Why do you think the temperature rise will be only a few tenths of a degree? We’ve already increased about 1 degree since the LIA. Not bad so far. I think if temperatures continue to increase, conditions will still allow plants and animals to flourish, but if rising temperatures melt land ice and sea level keeps going up, we could eventually lose significant land area. Nice if we could avoid that.
I think it will be only a few tenths of a degree because that is what the science is indicating.
Yes, we have warmed by 1 degree since the end of the little ice age, and the vast majority of that occurred prior to the big rise in CO2, so cannot be attributed to CO2.
There is zero evidence that the rate in sea level rise has increased, despite a steadily growing level of CO2 over the last 70 years.
Yes, cheering that the rate of SLR is constant so far. It could accelerate if the warming continues though. Let’s see what happens in the aftermath of this El Niño (step up to a new thermal plateau or not?), and especially when the PDO goes positive again.
what about the risk to humanity from global stupid such as you represent- what’s the precautionary rule for that one?
wouldn’t it be the low/no regrets path to spend your money on duct tape for your face?
Why the knee jerk reaction to JMA? S/he is proposing unbiased additional research to see if anything important is on the horizon, and no regrets steps. By definition, no regrets steps cost nothing and do no harm. I’m not certain that such a thing exists, but if so, why not? As for unbiased research, what could possibly be bad about that? If skeptics are right, it will prove them right. If they’re wrong, might be good to know about it. The key is “unbiased”. You can never predict the benefits of unbiased research because by definition you don’t know what the answers are, and so cannot assign value to the results. The amount we spend versus other things is a different matter, but a knee jerk “no!” response makes little sense.
Suppressing energy generation that produces CO2 is the very opposite of a “no regrets, no cost, no harm” step. In practice, to date, it produces regrets, cost, and harm in spades. Including the “opportunity cost” of foregoing the huge agricultural growing benefits of CO2 enrichment!
Brian H December 6, 2016 at 7:51 pm
Suppressing energy generation that produces CO2 is the very opposite of a “no regrets, no cost, no harm” step.
….and is not what JMA proposed. See my first sentence about knee jerk reactions…
“….and is not what JMA proposed. See my first sentence about knee jerk reactions…”
SJWs always lie. Try to compromise with them, and they’ll take everything you have and leave you for the ice weasels, beaten and bloody.
No. The AGW scam needs to be killed stone dead.
No. The AGW scam needs to be killed stone dead.
What better way than unbiased research that proves it a scam? Do you really think that there is another way to kill it? Defund all the programs and it will just go away? Do you know what that does? It let’s the alarmists claim the government is hiding something, they double down on the rhetoric, and at some point in the future THEY win an election. You really want to spend the next 4 to 8 years doing nothing while they fill up on ammo? Do you really want to arrive at the next major change in government with NOTHING to show in terms of what the facts are?
Do the unbiased research and publish the results. Anything less isn’t science.
There are no steps that are cost free. However, there are some things that would be somewhat close to “no-regrets” steps to reduce CO2 emissions:
1. Nuclear Power – the answer is NO.
2. Hydroelectricity – the answer is NO.
3. Diesel vs. Gasoline as Diesel can get about 50% better fuel mileage (thus reducing CO2 emissions) – the answer is NO.
We are facing a totalitarian imposition of a radical agenda where no dissent is allowed. The vampire has to have a stake driven through it and smothered in garlic, so that reasonable people can go back to having a reasonable and properly scientific debate about the actual science. There is actually quite a bit of difference among the so-called skeptics about the science, but we have reached a point where actual scientific debate has been snuffed out completely. Published scientists can no longer publish. No more debate is allowed. This is intolerable.
Sure, there are a lot of lies and fraud perpetrated by the alarmists, not to mention disgusting personal and professional attacks on those who disagree with them, but that should not distract us from the awful possibility that there may be a little truth buried in the manure.
why don’t you go get a CAT scan just in case of a brain tumor?
you know- those free ones they give away with every peer reviewed climate paper. (are they charging for brain tumors now, too?)
the key is ‘not your money’ and the no-regrets scenario is ‘don’t touch it if it isn’t yours’
” By definition, no regrets steps cost nothing and do no harm.”
He clearly states a “no regrets” reduction in anthropogenic CO2. Read (or watch) http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/ to see how our CO2 saved life from inevitable self-extinction. The planet has greened up thanks to our CO2.
“t let’s the alarmists claim the government is hiding something”
If there’s no money, they’ll find something else to do. And, if Trump does his job right, the Democrats will never win another election. They’re doubling down on the same identity politics that cost them the White House this time around.
Around the world, the right pay trillions of dollars of taxes to fund the left. If you want to end the insanity, that has to stop.
david, depends on who you talk to, a lot of these “no regrets” steps involve lots of taxes and social controls.
david, depends on who you talk to, a lot of these “no regrets” steps involve lots of taxes and social controls.
1. I said I doubt any no regrets policies actually exist
2. By definition, steps involving lots of taxes and social controls are NOT “no regrets”.
“….less of an agenda…”? How’s about NO agenda of that or any similar description?
Sure, good edit.
@ur momisugly JMA
And because of a “tenable hypothesis” the developed nations of the world must give 100 billion dollars per year from 2020 to the developing countries? No, this is a con scheme to squeeze out “guilt money” from those gullible enough to accept that they are “destroying the climate”.
Well I agree that falls into the regrettable category. But there are other avenues.
Sorry–you have cause and effect reversed. The temperature goes up, and then, about 800 years later, CO2 levels follow. Carbon dioxide’s effect in warming the earth has not been proved–at all.
Yes, I know about the ice core data. Temperatures goes up, oceans degas CO2. Doesn’t mean that rising CO2 would not drive up temperatures from the GHG effect.
@JMA, if rising CO2 drives up temperatures, then why is it that when CO2 levels are at their highest, temperatures begin to drop, and continue dropping for ~800y until CO2 levels fall in response? What is the thing that is so powerful that it can overcome the highest levels of CO2?
JMA
December 7, 2016 at 6:53 am: No, JMA, your stock sidesteppings of hypothesis are pure denia! of truth ie trollwork. There is a long list of empirical and experimental disproofs of your belief already. But your type will not look at these, preferring to waste our time for your own ends. Goodbye.
“It makes sense to take some no-regrets steps to reduce GHG emissions …”
No, it does not.
“Human emissions of carbon dioxide have saved life on Earth from inevitable starvation and extinction due to lack of CO2. To use the analogy of the Atomic Clock, if the Earth were 24 hours old we were at 38 seconds to midnight when we reversed the trend towards the End Times. If that isn’t good news I don’t know what is. You don’t get to stave off Armageddon every day.”
Read all about the facts here
http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/
Plenty of CO2 in the system previously, without our input.
That’s not true. CO2 levels were down to about 280ppm, plants start to suffer around 200 ppm.
That’s dangerously close.
@JMA December 7, 2016 at 6:29 am
“Plenty of CO2 in the system previously, without our input.”
You obviously didn’t read either the reference OR the quote.
280 ppm and falling is anything but “plenty”. Even today, with human emissions causing CO2 to reach 400 ppm plants are still restricted in their growth rate, which would be much higher if CO2 were at 1000-2000 ppm – 400 ppm is hardly “plenty” for a healthy biosphere.
If humans had not begun to unlock some of the carbon stored as fossil fuels, all of which had been in the atmosphere as CO2 before sequestration by plants and animals, life on Earth would have soon been starved of this essential nutrient and would begin to die. Given the present trends of glaciations and interglacial periods this would likely have occurred less than 2 million years from today. Try to actually read it before replying.
Pity the alarmists can’t get alarmed about something alarming based on fact.
As poorly understood as climate sensitivity to GHG emissions is, the science for the risks of increased warming is worse, much worse. Independent of temperature effects, I think it’s clear that increased CO2 is net beneficial. The warming that has occurred since the late 19th century appears to have been clearly net beneficial. Proved harm from the about 1C of warming we’ve had is conspicuous by its absence. To this point, the only harm from supposed CAGW has been from expensive policies aimed at a tiny amount of mitigation, a purely self-inflicted harm. (Also conspicuous by its absence is any serious attempt to show that mitigation is more economically sensible than adaption, especially given the time value of money.)
Under these circumstances, it’s entirely pointless to enact any policy for the purpose of decreasing CO2 emissions. I do support continued research into climate, and certainly think we need to pay attention to being resilient to climate change and weather events — even with no anthropogenic influence at all, climates will still change and extreme weather events will still happen. Maintaining the climate at a particularly well-liked level (i.e. NOT the climate of 1750) and preventing extreme weather events is currently far beyond our technology.
A no regrets policy would be don’t do anything until there is evidence that there actually is a problem.
Since despite 50 years of research, nobody has uncovered any evidence of a problem that needs to be addressed, I’m willing to believe that none will be found in the foreseeable future.
The earth is warming. The increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is at least a tenable hypothesis for the driver of some of the warming since 1950.
======================
nope. your logic ignores the warming prior to 1950. warming prior to 1950 is statistically identical to warming post 1950. However CO2 prior to 1950 is NOT statistically identical to CO2 post 1950.
The scientific method tells us that causation CANNOT OCCUR in the absence of correlation, thus CO2 cannot be the cause of post 1950 warming.
JMA,
“It makes sense to take some no-regrets steps…”
There’s the rub! There are no “no cost” or “no-regrets steps.” If there were, I would agree with you. But, all the pro-active proposals have significant direct costs and proabable unintended consequences. I do agree with you that we need a “better understanding of the basic science” because the science is not settled, contrary to what a well-known, self-anointed expert has said.
JMA, “I said hypothesis, not scientific hypothesis.” You wrote it in the context of a scientific argument. That makes it a scientific hypothesis by direct implication.
If you wanted to make a speculative suggestion, you should have called it speculation.
Down below, you wrote about, “the awful possibility that there may be an essential truth buried beneath the BS [about CO2 and warming]” and “Why do you think the temperature rise will be only a few tenths of a degree?”
Sure looks like you do indeed mean it to be a scientific (i.e., physically valid) hypothesis. You appear to be opening with a demurral and then arguing what was demurred. A bit of incoherence, that.
I’m unconvinced the Climate is understandable, at present there appear to be too many inter-dependent nonlinear variables contributing to both positive and negative feedbacks to be understandable. Anything more than crude short-term estimates are doomed to failure.
Correction: not just astronauts–also included NASA scientists. The linked article title is “50 Former Astronauts and Scientists Denounce NASA Stance on Global Warming.”
Thanks Anthony. Good work.
Hope to sit in on your session at AGU if time and “events” permit.
And The Sea Will Grant Each Man New Hope … His Sleep Brings Dreams Of Home.
🙂
That is not a poem by Christopher Columbus but the inspired BS from John McTiernan [Director] and Larry Ferguson [Screenwriter] for the film “The Hunt For The Red October” — It did not happen as in the film by the way. Semper Fidelis.
For some reason lately I have lately read more of the Huffingandpuffington post than I would have normally cared to.
‘Mercury in our food is just fine, too. Smog in the air? No problem. To top it off — we don’t need to do a thing about climate pollution, either.’
Either ?!?! The trillions we have spent cleaning up the air the last 50 years never happened? Are they telling us now that they really didn’t care? Then why should we care about climate pollution (sic), either? Whatever that means.
It boils my blood when these people act like nothing has changed in 50 years.
There is a tenable hypothesis for the existence of Cthulhu.
@JMA – “But the risks of poorly predicted warming are too great to ignore or dismiss as fraud, and can only be reduced through better understanding of the basic science.”
This is just a restatment of the Precautionary Principle, which comes down to rule by the people who tell the scariest stories. It is all about making up fake news and disseminating it in order to get people to obey.
It is NOT science. It is manipulation.
I am not sure how proposing further research to better understand the science is manipulation. Do you really think there is no risk that increasing GHGs are not warming the planet? If so I would be very glad to hear your scientific rationale.
Whoops, too many negatives. No risk that GHGs are warming the planet, I should have said.
JMA, you’re in Bifurcated land. You’re either with us or agin us. What’s it gonna be…………punk?
You’re either with us or agin us.
The notion this issue is one of “them” and “us” is simply juvenile. There is a gap between what we know and what we don’t know. Science is about closing the gap. Insisting that sides be chosen was the petty, infantile, political drama of one side that created the current mess. Insisting that the rest of us descend to that level also is both ridiculous and dangerous. Science is about finding out how the real world actually works. You can’t do that by insisting people take sides and calling them punks if they don’t.
“I would be very glad to hear your scientific rationale”
Sure… In the past 540 million years it is glaringly obvious that temperature and CO2 are in an inverse correlation at least as often as they are in any semblance of correlation. Two clear examples of reverse correlation occurred 150 million years and 50 million years ago. At the end of the Jurassic temperature fell dramatically while CO2 spiked. During the Eocene Thermal Maximum, temperature was likely higher than any time in the past 550 million years while CO2 had been on a downward track for 100 million years. This evidence alone is sufficient to warrant deep speculation of any claimed lock-step causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. Read more here for further edification:
http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/
I hope Tony is joking–I think “punk” Is intended humorously. I have always admired the skeptic side of the debate for trying to stick to civilized discussion, while the alarmists resort to lying, data manipulation, and personal/ professional attacks in their noble cause corruption. Bifurcated land is inhabited by many scientists when they lack solid evidence for or against a hypothesis.
@Alan Ranger. I am not saying there are no other climate forcers than CO2. The right conditions from a stronger forcer could cause an inversion of the CO2 temperature relation. Note the ice-core data at the end of each interglacial, in which temperatures are seen to start falling though CO2 is relatively high. Apparently the change in solar radiation overrides any CO2 effect. But thanks for the link, will look it up.
I get the impression that you think there is a proposal on the table to end all climate research, everywhere in the world.
If not, then why the lie about just wanting to continue research?
Note the ice-core data at the end of each interglacial, in which temperatures are seen to start falling though CO2 is relatively high. Apparently the change in solar radiation overrides any CO2 effect.
======================
nope. what your example shows is that high CO2 causes temperatures to fall. similarly the ice cores show that temperatures start to rise when CO2 is low, directly opposite the notion that increasing CO2 causes temperatures to rise.
the change in solar radiation is too small to be the cause, which is why Milankovitch was so strongly opposed when he presented his theory.
JMA,
How about spending just as much to show there is no risk of MAN’s emissions harming the planet?
Check that. Make that “harming the people that live on the planet?”
Politics. Money. Science. Not a good mix.
(And, NO, we should not spend more of others people’s money to “research” what is obvious.)
@JMA December 7, 2016 at 7:02 am
You originally posted:
“Do you really think there is no risk that increasing GHGs are not warming the planet? If so I would be very glad to hear your scientific rationale.”
The lack of correlation I cited is the scientific rationale required to dismiss any hypothesized cause-effect relationship. Glad to have sorted that one out for you.
From the wikitubes:
“Browning graduated from Wesleyan University in 1977 with a major in Philosophy, Literature, and History…”
Shocking, I know, what with all those straw men and the made up phrase of “climate pollution” all in the first paragraph.
For the record I do not want to influence people to smoke or not smoke. It is their decision. Where they smoke is another question and if possible I would generally prefer people not to smoke near me. Segregation in some public places, the football for instance is fantastic.Not a concern about second hand smoke health hazards either, I just do not like the smell and visual problems.
Smokers always seem to enjoy life more, even if it is shorter.
Quite happy to pay taxes to look after them as well, that is what a society should be about.
Except for POT which can be used anywhere in many States.
Kind of like old people, we pay taxes to look after them. Funny thing … if smokers die younger then they wouldn’t they use less health care?
Studies have found that smokers do use less health services over their life span. Additionally Social Security would have gone broke years ago if all those smokers hadn’t died early.
We can always hope, but I don’t recommend anybody hold their breath. The corruption and brainwashing run deep and wide and there are a lot of big money players, entrenched bureaucrats and tenured hyper-green “academics” who will fight tooth and nail to keep it going. There’s an old saying that Congress and POTUS are only the temp help, it’s the bureaucrats and GS numbers that really run the country.
To paraphrase Churchill, this is not the end or even the beginning of the end, it is only the end of the beginning.
Not this time. Their time is up, and they know it. Simple via budgets and grants.
I hope you’re right, Rud. BTW, in my opinion “Blowing Smoke” should be required reading for every freshman at every English speaking university worldwide.
Simple? You have to be kidding. We have had the young, the decision makers, opinion leaders and more be relentlessly subjected to AGW propaganda and dogma for a generation. There is nothing simple about unwinding the climate consensus trap.