Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Vox has just demonstrated their intolerance for any but the most extreme climate views – even positions which are within the bounds of official IPCC climate science.
Don’t expect climate action from Rex Tillerson. He’s a lukewarmer.
Updated by David Roberts @drvox david@vox.com Feb 2, 2017, 9:15am EST
The Secretary of State doesn’t seem to think the US should lead on climate change.
Rex Tillerson, until very recently the CEO of the world’s largest private oil company and a close chum of Russian President Vladimir Putin, is now the US secretary of state. This is not some ham-handed satire or lurid dystopian novel. It’s real life.
This makes Tillerson’s views on climate change a matter of great interest. Most countries in the world send their minister of the environment (the equivalent of our EPA administrator) to represent them at international climate talks. The US is different — we send our minister of international affairs, i.e., our secretary of state.
…
What does Tillerson think about climate change?
Judging from what we learned at his confirmation hearing on January 11, Tillerson is a “lukewarmer,” someone who acknowledges that the climate is changing, but doesn’t think it will be that bad and doesn’t think we know enough to take serious action anyway.
Functionally, a lukewarmer isn’t much different than an outright denier — they do not support serious policy. But politically, lukewarmism is a much smarter, more soothing stance, because it dodges the uncomfortable “denier” label.
At his hearing, Tillerson tried to get away with lukewarmism. Usually it works; very few US politicians scratch more than an inch deep on climate change, and lukewarmism has very nice-sounding inch-deep answers.
…
Read more: http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/2/2/14478566/tillerson-climate-lukewarmer
The IPCC admits climate sensitivity, the amount of warming to be expected if CO2 is doubled, might be as low as 1.5C. For the sake of argument, lets assume a climate sensitivity of 1.5C / doubling – the minimum sensitivity estimate which the IPCC considers to be acceptable.
NOAA estimates atmospheric CO2 is rising at around 3ppm / year. Assuming this rate of growth continues until the end of the century, by 2100 CO2 levels will peak at around 680ppm – around 2.5x pre-industrial CO2 levels of 260ppm – 280ppm.
At 1.5C / doubling;
calibrate: 1.5C = factor x log(2) ← the impact of CO2 climate forcing is logarithmic
factor = 1.5C / log(2) = 4.9
Warming from a 2.5x increase in CO2 (climate sensitivity = 1.5C / doubling)
= factor x log(2.5)
= 4.9 x log(2.5)
= 1.9C
We’ve already had around 1C of global warming since pre-industrial times, give or take, without any noticeable climate “disasters”. An extra 0.9C on top of current global temperatures doesn’t seem such a big deal.
Of course, the 1.5C / doubling is equilibrium climate sensitivity. If the Earth takes several centuries to achieve equilibrium, and equilibrium climate sensitivity is 1.5C / doubling, we won’t even see an additional 0.9C by the year 2100.
As for what happens after the year 2100 – does anyone seriously believe fossil fuels will be as significant a component of the energy mix in the year 2100, as they are in today’s world?
My point is, being a lukewarmer like Tillerson is completely within the bounds of IPCC science.
Yet Vox have treated Tillerson’s lukewarmer views as if they are utterly unacceptable. In rejecting the legitimacy of being a Lukewarmer, Vox are as out of step with IPCC science as any climate skeptic.
Heck, one could argue that the IPCC is a “lukewarmer” group since they do not say “a doubling of CO2 does or is causing….” but they say “a doubling of CO2 may (or might) cause…”.
If there was no observational data to prove or disprove the IPCC general circulation models, then they could pretend that their incorrect general circulation models (GCM) may or may not be correct.
There are, however, at least a dozen independent observations that all support the assertion that the IPCC models are incorrect. There are roughly 100 different free variables in the climate models that have been ‘tuned’ to create CAGW.
We are not climate skeptics. A skeptic does not trust a result.
We are scientifically informed that CAGW is complete sham based on observations and analysis.
The general circulation models were purposely designed to create motivation for us to spend trillions and trillions of dollars on green scams that do not work and to send the developing countries ( via the corrupt UN who will of course skim the climate ‘action’ money off) $100 billion dollars a year ramping up to $2 Trillion dollars a year to be spend on green scams that also do not work.
There is a reason the cult of CAGW will never participate in a formal written debate to defend their very, very, very expensive fantasy. They would lose the debate.
The point of the Trump opportunity is to destroy the alarmist/Greenshirt climate movement…..for good. Tillerson’s lukewarmism is a problem. The IPCC needs to be withdrawn from and the propagandist climate infrastructure terminated from public funding.
If lukewarmism permits the alarmist academics to safe harbor and incubate there will only be more trouble when democrats regain some level of power. The goal should be to eradicate the ideology now and forever.
1. The earth is getting warmer
2. It’s all explained by rising atmospheric CO2
3. We humans are causing it because we burn fossil fuels
4. This will have catastrophic consequences for Earth and humanity.
Sorry, I just can’t buy in to all of that. I do believe that point 1 is correct, but I’ve only got about 150 years of thermometric data to look at, and not all of that is so good. I guess that makes me a Lukewarmer. Amazingly to me, there are prominent astronomers and astrophysicists that claim to believe the above narrative.
I was going to give you 4 ticks for that, but now you’ll have to stay behind after school.
(all the prominent astronomers and physicists accept the data. does that never worry you? and the national science organisations and the governments… except the Us govt, of course)
All? I think not. I could name a couple names, but then you would just redefine “prominent”.
“I was going to give you 4 ticks for that”
Wow, a kindy student giving ticks to a junior high student.
“(all the prominent astronomers and physicists accept the data.”
Why do you believe that one has to be a “prominent” astronomer or physicist to read raw temperature data and deduct that its warming or cooling and by how much for how long?
Well I didn’t think that 4-H club actually gave out ticks any more.
These days it is considered a success if you calf or lamb doesn’t croak before you send it to the abbatoir.
g
Griff tell me the name of the law of thermodynamics for solving the temperature of the global atmosphere and arriving at the same quantities science has established as the Standard Atmosphere of the planet or you’re a
craven,
posing,
fake.
Give me the formula.
Tell me what the factors in the equation stand for.
Tell us all the one of those factors which you claim establishes CO2 heating volumes of atmospheric air.
Be precise this is the simplest of question and answer tests about the simplest phase of matter.
“J. Hellberg February 3, 2017 at 5:44 pm”
Now now, asking Griff to answer real questions like that is beyond his abilities.
I had never heard of Vox. I had to look it up and then went for a look at the web site.
Good grief. You could’t make it up.
On second thoughts, they ARE making it up.
Couldn’t. Stupid computer.
Unbelievable isn’t it.
“… “lukewarmer,” someone who acknowledges that the climate is changing, but doesn’t think it will be that bad and doesn’t think we know enough to take serious action anyway.”
Bzzzzzztttt! Ooooh, sorry, that is incorrect. “Climate change” is Climatese for just about anything you want, as long as you can blame it on man. Lukewarmers only say that some (presumably measurable, even though it hasn’t been) of the warming last century was probably caused by man’s CO2. They don’t think the warming has been “bad”, but rather has been good, and no action of any kind needs to be taken.
The rate of increase of CO2 over the last 30 years averages about 1.7 ppmv/yr and not 3 ppmv. See Oceans, Ice & Snow and CO2 Rise, Swing and Seasonal Fluctuation http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJG_2016102714282839.pdf
The compound rate of CO2 increase has been in the range of 0.5% and lately 0,55% per year, less than the IPCC assumptions of 1 percent. So the time to double is about 125 years, not about 70 in many of the estimates.
Maybe the US will lust “lead from behind”. After all, it worked sooo good in Lybia.
…Libya….
MicroWarmer is a more accurate term. The warming that is actually observed is between 0 and 200 micro degrees Celcius per decade.
Also, I do believe in human caused warming – it is called the Urban Heat Island effect. It is beyond dispute that the area around Heathrow is hotter now than it was 100 years ago. However, I would argue that the primary cause is all the concrete runways and building and not the CO2 in aircraft exhaust.
“…and not the CO2 in aircraft exhaust.”
Remember last year, when a jet exhaust was pointed straight at the measurement instruments at Heathrow. The BOM was claiming it as the hottest day on record.
Global warming has been toxic science since it was invented. Frequently crossing the border into outright fraud.
Well, you know the BoM use reading from devices located at airports, Sydney and/or Bankstown, and these are the ones used in newscasts with “Hottest…since records began in the late 1800’s”. It’s very VERY misleading but you will be surprised how many fall for it.
This short article in OilPro Daily has some good comments about CO2 as well.
“Some Thoughts on CO2”
http://oilpro.com/post/29838/some-thoughts-co2?utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_term=2017-02-03&utm_content=Article_3_txt
Eric ==> Please, please, please: Attribute statements and sentiments to their actual originators — the person[s] who say or write the thing you are talking about.
“Vox” hasn’t said anything…. David Roberts, a writer on the Vox team, wrote something. He is not a Vox editor and does not speak for the Vox organization…he is, in effect, a paid columnist focusing on energy and Climate. He does not write journalistic news, he writes his opinions…which is all that ever appears at Vox. I say this to distinguish Vox from something like the New York Times, which is supposed to be doing news journalism and follow the Journalist Code of Ethics.
Unfortunately, the NY Times has abandoned journalism and resorted to rank name calling and libel on their front pages.
He famously wrote last year: “The obvious truth about global warming is this: barring miracles, humanity is in for some awful sh*t.”
Roberts no more speaks for Vox than I do for WUWT. His opinions are hos own, as my opinions are mine.
Vox published it in this case equals Vox “said” it.
A writer on the Vox team equals a Vox supported view.
Did Vox say the views in this article do not represent the views of Vox?
No.
Technically right but you protest too much, methinks
angech ==> It is a matter of journalism — not politics. A journalist correctly states his sources — naming names and affiliations. It is a simple matter to say, for instance, “David Roberts, a writer at Vox focusing on energy and Climate. wrote ….”
In the case of WUWT — ONLY articles and essays authored by Anthony Watts can be considered the official opinions of WUWT. Anthony allows contributors a lot of leeway in expressing their personal opinions and on occasion when those opinions might be 180º to his or when a contributor’s opinion is going to be viewed as very controversial, Anthony will append a notice to that effect. Anthony takes exception to other outlets that use the same false construct that Eric has used –> “WUWT says….” when it was really just some guest author.
Similarly, I would not want Anthony to be held responsible for the stuff I contribute here or for Judith Curry to be blamed for what I write there.
If other journalists want to write about something I wrote, either to complain or compliment, I prefer they say “Kip Hansen wrote, in a guest essay at WUWT, ….”
Truth be known, journalism has tipped off the pinnacle and is sliding fast to oblivion here in America. Here, at WUWT, we can and should do better.
If Mr. Worral wishes to be viewed as a journalist, then he can be journalistic practice. There are hacks enough in the MSM.
I published the author’s name Kip, at the top of the quote, just as it was published in Vox. I believe the author’s sentiments are typical of Vox’s editorial viewpoint on climate change.
US media assault on Trump reaching new lows each day. NYT claims spike in subscriptions which is to say relentless attack strategy is also profitable for now. How to counter.
Not usually a big fan of boycotts but Trump supporters will be looking for an opportunity to respond. Not normally the type to riot in the streets. Cut the cord on HBO. Not a necessity, over priced, and working night and day against you. Simply call to your cable or satellite provider will do it.
More people like to keep parrots, so need more scrap paper for parrots to shit on.
g
I think the point is now rather “moot” More and more people are questioning CAGW.
Yes there are talking heads still babbling away about rising seas extreme heat but it exists only in their rhetoric and phonied up graphs and studies.
There is now talk of rationing of veggies in the UK and Europe due to guess what? Drought? Seas flooding and drowning the farmlands?
Ah no, snow storms,freezing weather, rain wind. Surprise!
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38851097
michael
All last year it was very cold in Spain. I checked the windows 10 weather app almost every day, and apart from 2 or 3 weeks in the summer, the temperature was some 2 to 3 degrees cooler than the listed average for that day in question. My swimming pool never got above 31 degrees, and I would usually expect it to reach about 35 degrees in late July/early August.
Last month was very wet and cold, and there were strong winds. 6 trees blew down in my garden, and dozens blew down on the estate where I live. Some neighbours have had retaining walls collapse, mainly due to the rain causing pressure to build up behind the wall and causing the wall to rupture and then collapse. My neighbour lost more than 100 roof tiles off his roof.
When I went shopping today, I noticed that the price of tomatoes was up about 80%. No obvious shortage, but very high prices. I expect that the price of other fresh produce is up, but did not notice.
Hey but that is weather.
Who/m pray tell is Vox.
Do they have a better track record than, The Farmers’ Almanac ?
Two points here:
First point: Sooner or later, the Democrats will be back in control of the federal government, at which time they can and will begin reversing the policies that Donald Trump enforced while he was president.
Second point: Mainstream climate scientists will not begin questioning the basic validity of their climate models until and unless a long period of statistically significant global cooling has occurred, possibly one lasting forty years or more.
Face it people, the contentious debate over climate change isn’t going to go away any time soon, if it ever goes away at all.
I’ve seen no convincing evidence that a significant and long-lasting cooling phase is now approaching, one which could statistically reverse the forty-year trend of roughly +0.1 C per decade.
If the Democrats return to power in 2020 or 2024, the question they will face is whether or not to get truly serious about reducing America’s carbon emissions, something they were unwilling to do while they were in power.
If they do decide to get serious about it once they are back in control, they must put a stiff price on carbon and they must enact strong anti-carbon regulations which touch every nook and cranny of America’s economy.
If the Democrats aren’t willing to go that far, if and when their time comes again, then they will simply be pandering to the environmental community for votes, rather than acting in true accordance with their often-expressed fears for the fate of humanity.
“Second point: Mainstream climate scientists will not begin questioning the basic validity of their climate models until and unless a long period of statistically significant global cooling has occurred, possibly one lasting forty years or more” We have not seen cooling for decades. it would not take 40 years to cause a re-appraisal by climate scientists.
This is why it is essential to get to the bottom of the adjustments made to the temperature record. Trump needs to make the most of the time that he has been given.
It is actually essential that the best sited stations are identified (those with pristine data, no station moves, no encroachment of urbanisation or change of land use, best record practices etc) and then retrofit these with the same LIG thermometers that were used in the 1930s/early 1940s and then observe using the same practices as that station used in the 1930s/early 1940s. In this way there will be the same TOB, and there will be no need to make any adjustment whatsoever to raw data.
Just compare pristine data as was actually collected in the period 1933 to 1945 and compare it with temperature data collected today, using the same equipment, practice and procedures, over the course of the next few years.
In that way, we will quickly get a good impression as to how much warmer it is today than it was in the late 1930/early 1940s warm period.
PS. I am not suggesting there be an attempt to reconstruct a global temperature anomaly. Just look at a dozen or so of the very best stations in about a dozen different countries across the Northern Hemisphere. 100 stations all told should give us a good impression of what, if anything, has gone on. This would not be a time consuming task, although it may be difficult to persuade countries other than the US to join in.
“…statistically significant global cooling has occurred, possibly one lasting forty years or more.”
Didn’t Hansen say 15 years? We are well past 15 years and there has been no warming. The models based on CO2 = warming have been proven false. Warmists simply can’t comprehend that, so they attack anybody they can.
“…at which time they can and will begin reversing the policies that Donald Trump enforced while he was president.”
Um, no. Obama was never able to put his policies to Congress and get them turned into law. Trump simply needed to sign an executive order reversing Obama’s executive order. Trump has a Republican House and Senate. He will get his policies enacted in law. Any Democrat following Trump would have a much harder time reversing those laws than Trump.
Hivemind, from what I can personally observe of mainstream climate scientists, they will never retreat one iota from their position that their numerical models are useful tools in predicting future climate regimes and that today’s climate models are generally accurate over long time frames. This will remain their position regardless of where observed temperatures actually go over shorter time frames, up or down.
As for Trump as his unexpected victory in November, he and the Republicans in Congress are taking a high risk political gamble in monkeying with Obamacare and in reducing government spending in ways that reduce benefits to a variety of voting constituencies and economic interests dependent on government subsidies and government spending.
The winds of political change are fickle, and we have seen what can happen when the voting public turns against those politicians who promise big and don’t deliver on their promises. If the Democrats put their minds to it, a Democrat president and Congress who were elected in a voter backlash could quickly reverse anything that Trump and the Republicans did while they were in power.
As it concerns climate change and what they would do differently than Trump and the Republicans, the big question still remains, would the Democrats actually get serious about reducing America’s carbon emissions by putting a stiff price on carbon and by imposing a series of strong anti-carbon regulations against all sectors of the American economy, not just against the coal industry?
It seems that the one who took the high risk was Hillary – and she lost. Since its inception, all polls have showed Obamacare to be a loser. And reducing government spending to be a winner. The only risk is that the media and the left will vilify Trump for doing what he promised. But then they would do that in any event, so he has nothing to lose.
Mainstream “Climate Scientists” in the US are about to lose all of their gov funding. Those individuals will either retire, or go find honest jobs.
CAGW in the US will die on the vine. It’s over.
“does anyone seriously believe fossil fuels will be as significant a component of the energy mix in the year 2100, as they are in today’s world?”
I am willing to put a Benjamin on the fossil fuel side of the line. Every prediction of resource exhaustion so far has been wrong. Just a few years ago, pundits were saying that the world had reached peak oil, that henceforth production would go down, and the price of oil would never be less than $100/bbl again.
They were wrong. The sainted M. King. Hubbert, was wrong. He had said that US production of hydrocarbons would never be higher than it was in 1970s. He was wrong.
but it won’t be a shortage which sees off fossil fuels!
I twill be better alternatives in renewables and action taken against climate change which sees them off.
Outside the quaint backwater of America, that is…
A Saudi oil minister said recently ‘it wasn’t a shortage of stone which ended the stone age’
@Griff – Government never picks winners. It picks losers to support. The Market picks winners. So this “backwater” will allow the winners to win, and the losers will be selected by incompetent governments who have more money than brains, and less talent than that.
Solyndra should have shown you that no matter what your faith is, government cannot make a winner out of a loser.
I will bet a like sum against sogenannten “renewables”. The problems caused by the sun going down every day, the slow progression of the seasons, and the fickleness of the wind make them uneconomic, now and forever.
Japan building 45 new coal fired power stations
India going gang-busters,
Coal prices climbing fast
China building many coal fired power stations at home and abroad
Turkey, Poland, Indonesia etc etc
So don’t worry, Griff, there is PLENTY of fossil fuel available.
And there will be PLENTY of CO₂ emissions for a long time in the future.
The subsidies and feed-in mandates that hold renewables together, cannot last forever.
Reality will force those to disappear, and when they do, so will the unreliable renewable types.
@Griff – Visit Spain and explain to those that sit huddled in blankets that Wind and Solar is the future. I have over 5 feet of snow here, my solar panel hasn’t produced anything for 5 days(try digging out a class solar panel with a snow shovel!), the ‘wind’ is at 2mph.
“A Saudi oil minister said recently ‘it wasn’t a shortage of stone which ended the stone age’ …”.
==============================
That quote dates from the 1973 Oil Crisis; ‘… Yamani [Saudi Arabian politician and Minister of Oil and Mineral Resources from 1962 to 1986] famously said in 1973: “The Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones” …” (Wiki).
A more apt analogy in the current circumstances would be ‘the Bronze Age didn’t end because they went back to using stone.
He oughta know. The Saudi oil minister lives in a place still surrounded by the stone age; so the stone age never ended in that region.
g
Maybe Vox would like to round up all the open minded ones for questioning or at least mark them as suspects.
The same writer {David Roberts} in a different article on Vox {“Donald Trump is the sole reliable source of truth, says chair of House Science Committee”} writes:
Let that sink in. This writer is against a “tribal epistemology” . He thinks it is bad for everyone to agree on one dogma without regard of any other opinions. Tribal Epistemology is a bad thing. Apparently, except when it is his tribe.
He bleeds hypocrisy.
Is epi stemology the process of plating tree trunks with a new epitaxial layer each year; often called a tree ring ??
g
The VOX author is afraid that someone who opposes his views appears to be rational. There’s no danger of the VOX author himself falling into that trap.
Dunno if we can believe this, but:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-03/un-official-admits-global-warming-agenda-really-about-destroying-capitalism
A Progressive publication showing almost total intolerance? Knock me over with a feather.
When I first encountered the ‘lukewarm’ moniker, about the same time as hearing of ‘skydragons’, I was astounded at how closely aligned the lukewarmers were scientifically to warmists in terms of believing there is an actual real and positive ECS wrt CO2 that effected the temp rise post 1800’s.
Making this an odd statement: “Functionally, a lukewarmer isn’t much different than an outright denier”…
It seems to me the only major differences between a lukewarmist and a warmist is on the harmfulness of warmer temps and what if anything is to be done about it, differing mainly on degree of CO2 ‘warming’.
That’s where the trouble starts…
What’s happening here is part and parcel of the warmists’ long game: break skeptical unity and harden the public’s views on CO2 by continually promoting the false idea that humans had something to do with the 0.8C rise over 150+ years, and by constant reinforcement that recent high temps were the highest.
SOME lukewarmists are helping the warmists with both parts, their ‘CO2 warms’ messaging, and by tacitly accepting the rhetoric that the last few years were the ‘warmest evah’ (vs comparison to the 1930/40s).
Stop admitting to those lies! Stop admitting to Gavin’s manipulated temperature series, where he obliterated the higher-than-last year temps of the 1930’s and 40’s. 2015/16 were NOT record years by comparison.
Everything in the media is a lie! Didn’t the 2016 election serve to inform that these warmists will do anything to get their way including co-opting lukewarmists with their deceptive rhetoric?!
We must stand together and say in unison Gavin’s GISS is a lie and so is any warming attribution to CO2
Everyone knows in spite of Gavin’s distortions that temps cooled from the 1940’s until the late 1970s.
In other words it cooled for decades while CO2 rose steadily, and that one lone fact destroys any credibility in any lukewarmist or warmist argument that CO2 does anything positive wrt temperatures!
Making any and all CO2 ECS attribution patently bogus. ECS of CO2 is effectively zero.
Its damaging to continue lying to everyone that GHGs caused any part of 100% natural solar warming!
There was no GHG effect warming in the 20th century or at any other time, and I don’t say that because I doubt a GHG effect occurs or I wear a ‘skydragon’ badge or something. I say it because it’s true.
It’s true because the SUN’s higher activity during the 20th century caused the warming of the 20th century.
The SUN caused the climate to change as it warmed up the Earth by putting out higher radiation via higher sunspot activity, which was 65% higher for the 70 years from 1935-2004, when it averaged 108.5, versus the prior 70 years, when it averaged 65.8 annually, from 1865 to 1934.
Except for the now gone SC24 TSI peak driven ENSO, the ‘pause’ in temps is due to lower solar activity since 2004, ie, the sun wasn’t hot enough for another warm peak until the SC24 max occurred.
This year the media has so far mostly hidden the encroaching low solar activity driven cold weather, but they can’t hold back this truth forever. The epic cold and snow records this year will be repeated next.
If lukes won’t completely drop CO2 attribution, lukewarmists will be lumped with the warmists by the public, and be swept away together as the awareness of the real chilling effect of low solar activity spreads, and the deeper understanding that the ‘CO2 warms’ theory is but 100% pap. Do lukes want that?
Lukewarmism could lead science by overtly disengaging and refraining from any ‘CO2 warms’ discussion and by moving on to what’s really driving the weather and climate.
If it doesn’t, by the end of this solar minimum lukewarmism will be nearly as dead as warmism, for the same reasons: refusal to give up the ‘CO2 warms’ idea, and refusal to understand the how’s and why’s of 100% natural solar warming and cooling.
I think there are 2 major differences.
One is that they consider that Climate Sensitivity is lower than the IPCC suggest, ie., less than 2 and may be more in the region of 0.9 to 1.6; and/or
Second, they consider that warming is not as harmful as the usual/mainstream warmist suggests.
They often consider that natural variation has played a larger role in the late 20th century warming, hence why Climate Sensitivity is lower than the IPCC suggests and/or they consider that there may not have been as much warming as the land based thermometer data sets suggests due to c0rruption of the data sets particularly by UHI, site moves and station drop outs.
Of course, a lukewarmer is fully signed up to the principle of the science underpinning cAGW, just not its over blown nature.
My position is there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the “warming” that has been experienced recently was caused by burning fossil fuels. The recent warming is no different than the warming during the 1910-1940 period, which was not caused by CO2, and the cooling that took place from 1940-1975 happened while CO2 amounts were continually going higher. It’s all natural, and noone can prove differently. Bastardized surface temperature charts are not considered proof.
+ 100 Bob
David Roberts from Vox: “Tillerson is a ‘close chum’ of President Putin.” What constitutes a close chum? Holidays together, regular golf games followed by lots of drinking at the bar, children do sleep overs, friends on Facebook? Any evidence?
Or is this another example of fake news?
Tillerson is smart. Instead of his company’s assets being seized by Putin like Shell Oil did after developing a promising oil field, Tillerson did a deal for drilling in the Russian Arctic with Exxon money while pairing it with Russian investment on the U.S. side in the Gulf of Mexico. Such facts never get to Progressive readers though. They only hear chum and move on.
Any good business man knows he has to follow the laws and the edicts of the country where he does business. He does not have to believe the laws or rules are overall good. The key to good business is to have success using the rules imposed upon it. Also if there is the public image on a given issue, it does no good to tell the public they are badly miss informed even if it is obvious. I would not blame Rex (now SOS) for his past business deals as long as he was making money for his company and not breaking the law. Personal beliefs cannot get in the way of good business unless it involves ethics.
The new SOS knows the new rules and will enforce them or resign if they violate his integrity.
“Or is this another example of fake news?”
Yes, it’s another example of fake news.
Trump says he never even met Putin and doesn’t know whether he will get along with him or not.
In the current atmosphere, it is better to assume that anything that is detrimental to Trump should be viewed as fake news until proven differently. More than likely it is fake news. The MSM has lost control of their senses and are searching for anything they can find or make up that will do Trump harm. Trump is right, the MSM is the Opposition Party. Don’t expect to get the truth out of them, expect just the opposite.
TA: “Trump says he never even met Putin”
..
..
..
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-2015-interview-claims-he-met-putin
TA February 3, 2017 at 7:09 pm
“Or is this another example of fake news?”
Yes, it’s another example of fake news.
Trump says he never even met Putin and doesn’t know whether he will get along with him or not.
He also said that he met him a couple of years ago and “got along with him great”.
“NOAA estimates atmospheric CO2 is rising at around 3ppm / year. Assuming this rate of growth continues until the end of the century, by 2100 CO2 levels will peak at around 680ppm”
From a paper om peak carbon: Abstract:
“Climate projections are based on emission scenarios. The emission scenarios used by the IPCC and by mainstream climate scientists are largely derived from the predicted demand for fossil fuels, and in our view take insufficient consideration of the constrained emissions that are likely due to the depletion of these fuels. This paper, by contrast, takes a supply-side view of CO2 emission, and generates two supply-driven emission scenarios based on a comprehensive investigation of likely long-term pathways of fossil fuel production drawn from peer-reviewed literature published since 2000. The potential rapid increases in the supply of the non-conventional fossil fuels are also investigated. Climate projections calculated in this paper indicate that the future atmospheric CO2 concentration will not exceed 610 ppm in this century; and that the increase in global surface temperature will be lower than 2.6 °C compared to pre-industrial level even if there is a significant increase in the production of non-conventional fossil fuels. Our results indicate therefore that the IPCC’s climate projections overestimate the upper-bound of climate change”
The implications of fossil fuel supply constraints on climate change projections: A supply-side analysis
Jianliang Wanga, , , Lianyong Fenga, , Xu Tanga, , Yongmei Bentleyb, , Mikael Höökc,
IPCC uses about 1% annual growth in emissions but seem to neglect the fact that about half of this is absorbed by the biosphere. Actual CO2 has been increasing in the 0.5% to 0.55% range.
Rex will not set policy for Trump. When President Trump follows through on his promises CO2 is a dead issue. President Trump has been checking his bucket list daily (some are screaming to much too fast) so stand by. The only thing I hate at this time is all the ‘could/if/maybe/might/should be’ crap from the MSM and #NeverTrump people.
NOTE: the EPA pick hasn’t been voted on yet!
Trump is no fool.
I think we have to wait for this post to be voted in, before Trump acts as he has intimated that he will do so. I hope, and expect, to see the gloves coming off once this post is in place. It is essential to the draining of the swamp.
“they don’t support serious policy”
CAGW is a meme and every successful meme must inspire at least some of its infected hosts to proselytize and spread the meme infection to new hosts.