A Double Take on a Single Nomination

From RadioIowa

Iowan Sam Clovis nominated to be USDA undersecretary

July 20, 2017 By O. Kay Henderson

Sam-Clovis-249x300

Sam Clovis

President Trump has nominated an Iowan who was a top policy advisor on Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign to serve as the USDA Undersecretary for research, education and economics. Sam Clovis, formerly of Hinton, Iowa, has been working in the USDA since Trump took office, serving as a liason to the White House.

“This may be the last rodeo I ever have. I can’t believe I’ve had this experience,” Clovis said a year ago during an appearance in Iowa. “But I will tell you this: I can’t imagine anything more important than what I’m doing right now because it’s about the country.”

His nomination to be the top science advisor in the USDA has sparked controversy, as Clovis has said he’s skeptical of climate science.

“I have looked at the science and I have enough of a science background to know when I’m being boofed and I think a lot of what we see is ‘junk science’, so I’m a skeptic,” Clovis said during a 2014 interview on Iowa Public Radio.

“…Does man have an impact on the environment? Absolutely, but there’s a difference between having an impact on the environment and leading us to something that we have now changes from global warning now to climate change because I’m not sure what climate change means.”

Clovis said he’s wary of efforts to restrict human activity deemed damaging to the environment.

Full Story Here.

 

From From Think Progress

Trump officially nominates climate-denying conservative talk radio host as USDA’s top scientist

Natasha Geiling

Reporter at ThinkProgress.

Jul 20

The Trump administration’s war on science continues apace.

Sam Clovis, a former Trump campaign adviser and one-time conservative talk radio host, has no background in the hard sciences, nor any policy experience with food or agriculture. Still, that did not stop President Donald Trump from officially nominating Clovis to the position of the United States Department of Agriculture’s undersecretary of research, education, and economics, the agency’s top science position.

You can read the full story here

I don’t want to copy too much of their article and I don’t mind sending traffic over there. ~ctm

Advertisements

111 thoughts on “A Double Take on a Single Nomination

  1. Here is a further quote from RadioIowa, which I think is important. I understand the need to be careful about how much of an article one quotes, but this needs to be repeated here, not just linked:

    “What we see about a lot of this…is really about income redistribution from rich nations that are industrialized to nations that are not and it comes down to this false premise…that we ought to consume based on population rather than on the strength of our economy,” Clovis said. “If we have 20 percent of the world GDP, it wouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that we consume 20 percent of the energy of the world.”

    Please feel free to trim or delete for copyright purposes.

    • ” . .. .20% of GDP . .. .20% of the energy”

      Sheesh. Is he allowed to say that?
      So economies run on energy expenditure. Someone needs to put a stop to this.

      • Oh, the “watermelons” are trying, sir. The communists couldn’t beat the West militarily but they found that by shutting down our energy supply, they didn’t need to use bullets or bombs.

      • Rockyroad. You’re right on. In past wars we bombed enemy fuel supplies that fueld their war making machinery. Now our enemy has convinced us to destroy our own fuel supply. Pretty cleaver on their part, I think.

      • I highly suspect RR is not “right on”, James, in the sense that I don’t believe actual communists are not what we face now, but rather “Elitists” employing communist rhetoric, because they know it is effective. And, I feel it is playing into their con, to speak as though we were being accosted by actual communists.

        Yes, they want the power/control that “socialistic” style governance requires, I believe, but have no intention whatsoever of surrendering their own vast wealth and power to some dorky SJW type “useful idiots”. We face something more along the lines of a would-be Pharaoh than wannabe Moses, me thinks ; )

      • “….I don’t believe actual communists are not what we face now, but rather “Elitists” employing communist rhetoric, because they know it is effective. And, I feel it is playing into their con, to speak as though we were being accosted by actual communists…….Yes, they want the power/control that “socialistic” style governance requires,…” Does it make a difference if it walks like a duck? They are using or being used by the Marxist playbook either way.

      • markl,

        ” Does it make a difference if it walks like a duck?”

        To those susceptible to communist/socialist rhetoric? . . Would it make a difference to duck hunters if they found out the sound of quaking ducks they had heard was coming from guys with duck calls? ; )

      • I agree. Some say rhetoric, some say ‘conspiracy theory’. You say rhetoric and so do I.

      • Hmm . . Good, I think . . Let me try that again;

        “Does it make a difference if it walks like a duck? They are using or being used by the Marxist playbook either way.”

        Briefly put; I’m suggesting that (virtually) no one with real power/wealth/mass media is actually intending to establish a real socialist/communist system, but rather, many are merely using socialist/communist rhetoric to fool some young impressionable types into supporting candidates/causes that will enhance state power, which will then be used to do whatever those with that power want done (which is to say, in large part, whatever cements their power), because they are “elitists”.

        Hence, I feel it behooves those who wish “the people” to retain significant power (I.e. Constitutional Republic/Western civilization) to avoid speaking as though we face actual socialists/communists, intending to establish an actual socialist/communist system, since that sells much better than elitism . .

        If those susceptible to that collectivist sell, hear only voices telling them the goal is actual socialism/communism (from both those selling and those opposing the sale), they will be more likely to buy into it, than if they are hearing some trying to sell them such things, and others saying it’s a scam, and the real goal is unassailable state power/elitism.

      • “…I’m suggesting that (virtually) no one with real power/wealth/mass media is actually intending to establish a real socialist/communist system, but rather, many are merely using socialist/communist rhetoric to fool some young impressionable types into supporting candidates/causes that will enhance state power, which will then be used to do whatever those with that power want done (which is to say, in large part, whatever cements their power), because they are “elitists”…..” I think you have the tail wagging the dog but your explanation is plausible. The Marxist/Socialists are very good at usurping money and power from the elites and have been doing it since the beginning of the twentieth century. Look at how far and deep the IPCC has extended its’ tentacles into governments worldwide. The Soros et al are led to believe they are in charge only to gain their wealth and connections. They are dupes being used. That being said the immediate results are the same in the end. You can’t hide Venezuela and all the elites in that country will be discarded like used shoes after the revolution.

    • Now, will Trump appoint an Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (NOAA Administrator), or will he continue letting NOAA be run by an acting one promoted from within? What about a NASA administrator? NASA is also currently being run by an acting administrator promoted from within. Trump has gone over 7 months without appointing any swamp drainers here.

      • If Trump appointed a NOAA Administrator or a NASA Administrator and the Senate was holding that up, I’m sure I would know about that as a daily-plus reader of WUWT. The reason I haven’t heard in WUWT about the status of Trump appointing these seems to be because WUWT has a tendency of being uncritical of Trump.

  2. Is there a more semantically meaningless term than “climate-denying?” I mean, there are so many people who deny the climate exists, right?

  3. So Clovis taught economics. Obama put someone with degrees in Social Anthropology and Environmental Health Engineering in charge of the EPA. At least Economics is not yet a gut course most places.

    • He spent most of his career in the air force and rose to the rank of colonel before he retired. link None of his degrees is in science or engineering but I think you would have a hard time running a fighter squadron without a lot of exposure to engineering, meteorology, chemistry, and physics.

      • Clovis just needs to know that CO2 is plant food and that corn alcohol isn’t a very good additive to gasoline.

      • Nah. The LtC I currently work for is an engineer, but his predecessor had an MBA and essentially zero understanding of the engineering side of his job. Not uncommon. Our group (called a branch) is a heavy development team staffed by mostly programmatic contractors. We (the developers) often wonder what they all do.

      • Mark,

        The leadership in those development organizations is supposed to do the politics to make sure all the engineers have what they need to get the job done. It is a bonus if they actually understand what the engineers are asking for and why.

      • Interesting comment, cB. An old boss of mine once told me that the purpose of middle managers is to keep upper management from disrupting the real work. Once I moved up I got a better understanding of what he meant and he was right!

      • I know that. It was my point, actually, that being in that position is not necessarily an indicator of understanding.

  4. This guy’sd supposed ignorance can’t compare to that of the activist non-scientists like Obama, or
    his head of the EPA, etc. Of course, there are plenty of prestigious scientists who also “deny climate” (stupid wording), a fact apparently not known by this article writer. She needs to get involved in a debate amongst climate scientists in order for her to realize just how much she doesn’t knowand how many of the things she thinks she knows, she doesn’t. A political,not a science article.

    • RS, get over it, you lost. Its time some grownups ran the show for awhile to steer us back from the shoals. Classic comeback from the liberal left, don’t get your way so throw insults.

      • reallynotskeptical:

        Grownups?

        You mean, you prefer the version where legislators voted for a package without any idea of what was in it?

        I much prefer legislation that the “grownups” argue over. That is the original intent of our founders and how government works best.

        Only the childish vote for a bill without knowing what the bill is, how the law will work and what it will dor for America.

        Then there are the snowflakes who believe all governments should be autocratic and despotic.

      • Up here in Canada I wish we had something like the Electoral College to stop a couple of high population areas controlling who governs. We have our fate decided by Ontario and Quebec because they have the highest populations and us voters in the west cast our votes but that didn’t stop the empty suit we have as a Prime Minister, that throws our taxpayer money at the Paris Accord and the UN, from getting a majority government.

        BTW @ReallySkeptical, if you subtract the votes that illegals cast in states such as California, etc. I believe that the Donald would have the popular vote as well.

      • ReallySkeptical, its hard to pass because of the free phone effect. Several red states garnered an increase in Medicaid funding under Obamacare. And now they are not wanting to give it back.

      • ATheoK July 21, 2017 at 8:23 pm
        reallynotskeptical:

        Grownups?

        You mean, you prefer the version where legislators voted for a package without any idea of what was in it?

        I much prefer legislation that the “grownups” argue over. That is the original intent of our founders and how government works best.

        So you prefer Obamacare which had about one hundred committee hearings, two full House majority votes and a senate supermajority vote, as I recall there were many republican amendments.

        Only the childish vote for a bill without knowing what the bill is, how the law will work and what it will dor for America.

        Isn’t that the republican proposal, repeal the ACA, then work out what to do over the next two years?

      • “Phil. July 22, 2017 at 11:55 am

        ATheoK July 21, 2017 at 8:23 pm
        reallynotskeptical:

        Grownups?

        You mean, you prefer the version where legislators voted for a package without any idea of what was in it?

        I much prefer legislation that the “grownups” argue over. That is the original intent of our founders and how government works best.”

        So you prefer Obamacare which had about one hundred committee hearings, two full House majority votes and a senate supermajority vote, as I recall there were many republican amendments.

        Only the childish vote for a bill without knowing what the bill is, how the law will work and what it will do for America.

        Isn’t that the republican proposal, repeal the ACA, then work out what to do over the next two years?”

        Philthy:
        As you remember? Given your constant specious drivel, who believes you?

        Terrible attempt at the false “red herring” strawman.

        You twist words and invent new falsehoods.

    • Trump won the election against some “real geniuses”, didn’t he. Next time an environmentalist comes to your door Really “Skepical”??? ask them, what kind of science background, that they have? Trump has been said to be one of the smartest Presidents, that we have ever elected, but maybe it takes some intelligence to recognize intelligence. I voted for Trump, just because he was smart enough to recognize the scam that the criminal environmentalists were promoting. I got a rock through my front picture window from a Progressive imbecile, because of it. “Environmentalists”, EVIL OR IGNORANT, take your pick.

      • Really Skeptical, you’re showing your ignorance in spades.

        There’s no such thing as the “popular election”. That’s the reality. However, reality is not something that the scare mongers recognize. HRC lost the real election. That’s the reality.

        Here’s some more reality for you: there’s no such thing as average global temperature; there’s no such thing as man-made CO2 being the predominant driver of the 0.08 C° global temperature increase estimated to have occurred over the period 1905 – 2005.

        Your belief in the alternative is nothing but a fantasy of a febrile mind. Take an Aspirin or two.

      • reallyfakeskeptical:

        Absolute falsehood.

        The whole election process is designed to prevent tyranny by populace dense centers.

        Trump carried the vast bulwark of the nation’s counties and territory.

        The “popular” vote is represented by the sheer amount of counties and the delegates they control, voting for Trump over the yet to be convicted criminal.

      • @ ReallySkepical July 21, 2017 at 6:38 pm

        It should not surprise you that to engage in contests it helps if you understand the rules. For example:

        In the 1960 World Series, the runs scored was 55 for the Yanks and 27 for the Pirates. The Pirates won. The losing team scored more than twice as many runs as the winning team, as the Yankees won three blowout games (16–3, 10–0, and 12–0), while the Pirates won four close games (6–4, 3–2, 5–2, and 10–9).

        Trump understood the rules. Clinton did not, and lost.

      • “reallyskeptical” is just playing you and running through all the classic troll tropes of the last few months Next up is Russia, Russia, Russia, and how we’re all paid agents for Vladimir.

      • @ReallySkepical. Trump not getting the popular vote is completely irrelevant. U.S. elections are won or lost by the Electoral College. End of story. To suggest otherwise is like saying in a team in a football match won because they gained more yards, not having the greater number of touchdowns. Hillary lost. Deal with it.

      • To Really Skeptical..Do you honestly think, that if Hillary had lost the Popular vote, and had won the Electoral College, she would have graciously, said, ” I cannot accept this position, as it does not reflect the will of the people.. Mr Trump, I concede the Presidency to you..” As Bill Cosby said, “RIIIGHT””\

      • Correct, AussieBear. Trump didn’t “lose” the popular vote. It was not contested, not ever. You can’t lose something that wasn’t contested.

      • Sounds like a good pick to me. Now some of the progressives’ robbery from the portion of the government funds that go to USDA will stop. As a taxpayer I welcome it.

      • Sounds like he worked his way up with good management skills and works for the best interests of those he has responsibilities for. All Obama’s appointees seemed to be there to serve a partisan agenda.

    • “This guy seems as ignorant as Trump. Makes sense.”
      Let me try to cure some ignorance:
      There is utterly NOTHING unusual about today’s climate.
      It has been warmer before
      It has been cooler before
      There were more storms previously
      There were less storms previously
      The rate of change of temperature has been faster in the past.
      Same for droughts & floods
      Same for all the other crap the alarm industry claims.
      Therefore there is noting to worry about & nothing to explain with CO2

      If that is not enough evidence then:
      CO2 FOLLOWS TEMPERATURE and thus cannot be the cause of temperature changes.

      You need more evidence:
      CO2 went up from 1945(?) to 1970 as temperature declined.
      CO2 went up even more from 1995 to present as temperature was stable.
      Arctic warmed MORE in the early 1900s and faster than it did in the late 1990s which had much more CO2.

      Each of the above should be sufficient to prove that the AGW alarm industry has no case. Unfortunately the media is too illogical to understand this.

    • “This guy seems as ignorant as Trump”

      ReallySkepical…Seriously?

      You have got to be boofing. What Trump achieved has nothing to do with ignorance.

  5. Economics includes the math to understand “climate science” relative to real science. It scares the “climate scientists” to know that someone in charge can understand that they have no defensible evidence for what they claim other than a bogus temperature graph, a bogus CO2 graph, and horrendously expensive huge failures they like to call computer climate models.

    I love the claim that they base their “science of CO2” on the work of Nobel Prize winner Arrhenius in the late 1890s. What they do not mention is that the “science” of his that they tout is a failed conjecture he made that proved to be wrong. Even Nobel Prize winners have their bad ideas.

    It’s little wonder that the “climate scientists” refuse to submit their data and procedures. They claim people will just try to prove them wrong. Well, YEAH, that’s the point in science; logic and reproducibility. And, when the conclusions the climate alarmists reach are so dire and extreme, it makes complete, reasonable sense to check the science involved. It is amazing that any scientist would whine and complain that others might criticize their work, as if there was no way they could be wrong or have made any errors. It’s truly amazingly dysfunctional.

    • You know Higley, my understanding of Economics leads me to believe in most cases it’s very, very similar to the study of climate as practiced by the “main stream”. Lots of statistical modeling based on abstract theories, often Bayesian probabilities. Never predictive but widely employed by national governments in search of justification for policies that would seem counter-factual to physical scientists.

      I suppose I could understand why a person with that background might strike fear in the hearts of the status quo.

      • Austrian economic theory doesn’t involve a whole lot of statistics. At least, not that I know of. It’s actually rooted in psychology. Keynesian economics, however, does involve a lot of statistics, which is why it fails.

    • Please all, Look up the work of one Natalie Grant Wraga, Russian expert, who changed her name to Natalie Grant.
      The reference is :”Green Cross -Gorbachev and Enviro-Communism”- 1998
      She points out the connection between the current Environmental Global warming / Climate Change scare and how the Communists have used it to intervene with our Politics and Universities to curtail our Energy Production and create “Scientific Chaos” , in our Universities and elsewhere. It is still in use, and growing…
      ReallySkeptical–Give it a read and report back..

  6. Perhaps someone missed the fact that Clovis was an Air Force fighter pilot, commanded fighter squadrons, and was involved in Space Command and NORAD. All part of a 25 year military career. So he is not wrong when he indicates he may have a deep understanding of the atmosphere, weather and climate. He also knows the difference between space cadets and reality.

    I think I know which category he puts most climate scientists (well, at least 97%).

    • Pauly – thanks for that additional material. Wow the guy is going to be formidable as a reviewer of reality. In space, and in NORAD, things either work or they don’t. Lives depend on it. With cli-sci, money depends on it, nothing more because that is all there is. Money, money, money.

      • Spot-on sir. The question in my mind is if the progressive-owned media will be successful in defaming him and neutralizing his credibility.

    • I suspect that his experience as Inspector General at USSPACECOM / NORAD will serve him well also.

  7. There is “science” a thing published, using involving government funding, patents etc. It needs proving, not because it may not work (assuming a pilot is running) but because it was partially or totally government funded.

    Then there is “commercial” activity. Such processes using the scientific method. However, those involved are not interested in whether anyone believes them beyond their investors (assuming a pilot that produced data existed). That means no knowledge “sharing”, no patents, no government involvement, no public rewards.

    It is always a surprise to public company and government employees to discover that private enterprise is often years ahead of mainstream science. For some inventions decades ahead.

    There are no incentives for these discoveries to become public.

  8. The Democrats are slow-walking all of Trump’s appointments in an effort to hamper Trump’s agenda. I heard a report the other day that said Ben Carson, the head of Housing and Urban Development was the only Trump appointee in the whole department.

    Trump has had something like 50 nominees approved so far, while at the same time in Obama’s term, over 200 nominees had been approved.

    It’s so bad Trump is still stuck with Obama’s IRS commissioner. The one Republicans in Congress wanted to impeach and remove from office.

    The Democrat obstructionism is having its effects. It’s slowing Trump down but it’s not stopping him.

    In their attempts to undermine Trump, the Democrats are really undermining the United States and are putting our individual freedoms at risk with their lies and obstructionism. They are doing our foreign enemies’ work for them, by trying to divide the American people and undermine confidence in the American president.

    • Dude, the GOP controls both branches of congress. Can’t blame the Dems for their incompetence. Though you can blame Trump for not even nominating enough guys for the spots.

      • “Though you can blame Trump for not even nominating enough guys for the spots.”

        That’s a deliberate action on Trump’s part. I heard him say in an interview months ago that he probably wouldn’t be filling every position that was in the Obama administration because a lot of the jobs were unnecessary duplication.

      • The Dems have instituted “procedural” blocks on Trump’s nominees, requiring added TIME for debate on each candidate even if they do not wish to debate. The NY Times estimates it would take 11 years for Trumps nominees to be considered under these conditions.

  9. “Trump has had something like 50 nominees approved so far, while at the same time in Obama’s term, over 200 nominees had been approved.”

    Interestingly, both had majorities in congress at the time. What’s a matter with Trump?

    • “Interestingly, both had majorities in congress at the time. What’s a matter with Trump?”

      The difference is the Republicans did not actively obstruct every Obama nominee. They didn’t drag out every procedure to the limit.

      • You mean like not obstructing the appointment of a supreme court justice for nearly a year? In violation of the spirit of the constitution. The fact is that Trump has so far failed to nominate 384 positions that require senate confirmation. He is to blame not the democrats. Once someone is nominated the process takes 43 days for a Trump nominee compared to 35 for Obama so the process is taking slightly longer but not significantly.

      • Geronimo wrote: “You mean like not obstructing the appointment of a supreme court justice for nearly a year?”

        One example of “obstruction”. Trump gets *all* his nominees obstructed.

        Geronimo: “The fact is that Trump has so far failed to nominate 384 positions that require senate confirmation. He is to blame not the democrats.”

        That would just be 384 more nominees obstructed by the Democrats. They could get in the back of the long line. Trump said he wasn’t going to fill all the positions available. In the interview I heard him do on the subject, he seemed to imply that the Obama administration had padded the roster unnecessarily, possibly to give more political supporters rewards for their loyalty in the form of a government job.

        Trump’s aim is to cut the fat out of government instead.

      • The difference shows that the USA is not a democracy.
        It is a rigid dictatorship of unelected bureaucrats, media divas and activist judges.
        The president is a minor official with less executive power than the Queen of England.
        The whole Washington circus is a sick and idiotic joke that now is clear for the world to see.

    • “….Interestingly, both had majorities in congress at the time. What’s a matter with Trump?….” Nothing. His lack of popularity with Congress is his strong point. Continued action with the same political pattern is a loss of freedom and America. You don’t get it.

    • ReallySkeptical

      I understand from people who count such things, that the Trump Administration has already passed more legislation than the Obama and Bush administrations combined. I can’t really see that as a dysfunctional pair of majorities. Fifty nominees confirmed: cool. Are they effective at getting things done, like passing legislation and implementing policies that are positive for the country and its allies? Yes on both counts.

      Getting the US out of the Paris Agreement is one very positive development for everyone including those in poor countries. Showing some respect for due process and less respect for blind and empty imitation is also setting a good example for other countries. Everyone subject to inordinate pressure to ‘conform’ needs the example of others who stand up to tyranny, however well that tyranny is packaged. The US and indeed a lot of countries have inveterate enemies intent on destroying them. It is not wrong to oppose that.

      The unusual and positive role that the USA can still play one the world stage is to create a working example of how to cooperate at the international level without requiring one country or party to dominate everything. Pax Unis, not Pax Americana. At this the US has pretty much failed in the 20th Century. But the opportunity is still there: international cooperative federation is superior to monarchical or fascist (whatever its form) dictatorship.

      Clearly, the US has an issue of corruption of its political processes where money buys massive favours, but that is easy to solve. Cut off the money. Solving the problem of mindless obsequience to ‘climate tyranny’ is proving to be a more difficult, international scale problem that will require an internationally coordinated response – government as if the people mattered. Much as some individuals fear systematic international coordination and action, it is required in order to prevent single issue groups manipulating the global economy to serve their narrow interests. Much thought should be devoted to this.

  10. A few years back I actually believed mankind was having a discernible impact on the warming of the globe, especially after seeing Dr. Mann’s Hockey Stick graph. I’m an engineer, scientifically literate and generally believe published scientific work.

    I was talking with my wife, a history graduate, and she mentioned the Little Ice Age in relation to George Washington’s Valley Forge privation and Napoleon’s problems with that Russian winter. That led to a discussion of the flowering of western civilization during the Medieval Warm Period. And off I went, studying the various climate related topics, all because I came to realize the science-accepted Hockey Stick was not consistent with known facts. It floored me that a whole body of scientists believed

    Another big wake-up was Climategate. I couldn’t accept scientists’ suppression of data and information, rigging peer review and journal editing and vilification and ostracization of “deviant” scientists. It soon became apparent that we were dealing with political advocacy, not science.

    The topper was scientist/activists continuing to push CAGW when climate models were proven wrong; two times too hot for the surface and three times too hot for the atmosphere. Supposedly serious scientists denying the accuracy of radiosonde and satellite temperature estimates in relation to wildly varying surface temperature estimates.

    Basta!

    • Perhaps all of the climatologists should have taken their history classes more seriously.

    • Dave Fair, it never was about global warming (climate change) it is about the push for a Socialist one world government under the UN and progressives who think they are elites running the world wide tyranny. Please see the UN Agenda 21, Christina Figures, and the IPCC details.

      • Leonard, don’t forget to look up the Club of Rome – responsible for Agenda 21 – and the Trilateral Commission, both of which are working towards One World Government. To see where their members are in high places is very interesting.

    • Dave Fair

      I’m neither a scientist nor an engineer, in fact I only got as far as 6th form in secondary school.

      Like you, I too was a believer in climate change, until it all seemed to become a bit too convenient. I couldn’t understand how a trace gas at 400ppm could have such a profound effect on the climate.

      So I started asking questions on the alarmist’s sites and was attacked for asking them. I came here expecting the same treatment but was roundly educated by many patient people, even when I asked questions they didn’t agree with.

      I guess the moral of the story is that one doesn’t need to be educated to ask questions. Something a great deal of the population of the world doesn’t do.

      And as an additional benefit, I have had my political views justified. I despised socialists for their ‘big government’ desires but I didn’t understand the depths to which they would stoop to turn the world into a single government entity.

      • “HotScot July 22, 2017 at 1:38 am

        I couldn’t understand how a trace gas at 400ppm could have such a profound effect on the climate.”

        No, not 400ppm/v. That is the total atmospheric CO2 content. The claim is it is ONLY the human contribution that is problem. That is ~4% of that 400ppm/v. So you see, not only is the claim CO2 is driving climate change in a bad way is totally bogus, it’s the claim that it is only the ~4% human contribution is driving that change. Now that is rib tickling rediculous. And once I had worked that out I knew it was political and nothing to do with science and saving the environment.

      • Patrick MJD, it’s my understanding the man-made global warming concern originates with the atmospheric portion of CO2 increasing from 0.028% (measured in ice cores at 280 parts per million) for pre-industrial times to the current 0.04% (400ppm) and the portion of that increase that is from fossil fuel combustion.

        So it’s this difference of 120ppm causing all the fuss. What’s the human fingerprint? 120ppm? 60? 30? 15?…is there an accepted method of calibration?

        Then there’s the actual second order forcing coming back at as that wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for the Anthro CO2. Does it have any bite? Can it do any of the stuff these people “think” it can?

        Good grief.

      • Patrick MJD

        Thanks for picking me up on that. A point I think many of us forget, as I frequently do when involved with alarmists arguments that veer off into la la land whenever these numbers are mentioned. A typical response is that bacteria can kill whilst being in minute proportions the difference, of course, being is that bacteria is a self replicating organism, unlike CO2.

        And when I ask them to produce any empirical evidence that CO2 causes global temperature rise, I keep getting the single, roundly discredited paper presented to me. Discredited because it took temperature measurements from the low point of an La Nina to the high point of an El Nino.

        With no evidence of what they are claiming is happening, the concept that human contributed 4% of 40ppm is causing the planet to exhibit runaway warming is truly astonishing. It’s like claiming you’ll bankrupt a millionaire with the interest on $16 over 20 years.

      • M.W. Plia

        John Tyndall concluded that “water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall

        The link to Wikipedia is directly from the Royal Societies web page on him, so one of the very few Wikipedia sources I ever post.

      • HotScot

        A lack of schooling does not mean in any way a lack of education. Don’t accept the tyranny of the claims for authority of the schooled. Rather promote the idea that life is a system of continuing education. There are enormous advantages to avoiding school. That is why farmers are, by and large, so wise and so many academics so foolish. They who have ‘names to be wise’ are often found uttering the most foolish sentences.

    • I was watching the movie “Battleship”, made in 2012, the other day, and was surprised to hear that the writer had worked in a reference to Donald Trump as part of the dialogue. Trump was mentioned in a positive way. I thought, what a contrast that is, compared to the way it is now.

      No, we can’t give up our Donald. But don’t worry, he will end up setting such a good example that there will be lots of people, in lots of countries, seeing it his way, and taking action.

      Donald is a gamechanger. And in this world of mass communication, he can change the game in a lot of places. Success breeds duplication. All predicated of course, on the American Left and the MSM being unsuccessful in their attempts at destroying Trump.

    • Join the queue, we need him first. Here in the UK even so called conservatives still haven’t got over trying to be Blair-lite.

  11. I just love the squealing noise the Warmists are making right now…they are seething, many of them are sounding quite insane…it’s like music to my ears!

  12. Journalistic use of the phrase “war on science” is just so plain lazy. It’s tiresome.

  13. From a state that believes 100% politically that global warming is real. They were ground zero for turbines and subsidies. (Farmers had the subsidy experience—wind just borrowed it). How interesting. I can’t see how one can cut out waste and pork when one’s home state is a major subsidy recipient and pushing wind turbines night and day. I guess he can take a stab at it.

    • It’s not where one is from but what they do. Who’d have figured a Gorsuch nomination from a New Yorker or any of the conservative, smaller government policies Trump is pursuing? Iowa, New York, or Wyoming, where I live, I have found that everyone is looking for what they feel is good for them, including free shit, particularly free shit, irrespective of their political party. The free shit comes in different forms depending upon where you are and what you believe works . The present administration believes less government works better for everyone and is less into self enrichment than say the Obama, Clinton types. We dodged the bullet and the Clinton crime family in the last election and this is what we got.

  14. Even if you are convinced that CAGW is our biggest threat, pulling the US out of the climate worries has a big silver lining (please be patient W-proponents) . First, to make the lining as silver as possible, US retreat on it will result in a collapse of it in Europe (essentially the world). Almost 3billion people in two countries haven’t joined the effort yet, another billion in Africa can’t join without funds,etc,etc. Even Australia will be obliged to let go.

    This ‘hiatus’ in action on climate will definitively show in a decade whether our worst worries could be justified or not. Forty percent of a century will have elapsed since the alarm of imminent danger to us, habitat and the planet was sounded. We will see if sea level is accelerating, we will see if the trend in temperature is rising to catch up with the IPCC’S most benign scenario, we will see if Arctic ice is in a death spiral under conditions of even accelerated fossil fuel use in America, Europe and the rest of the world.

    If necessary, we could mount a ‘Manhattan [climate] Project’ to sweve away from the juggernaut of devilish climate. We would of course have this run by talented engineers and we would have to retrieve case histories from the last century of hurricanes, droughts, floods
    and all the usual stuff to measure against.

    Sorry no employment for sociologists, phillosophers, psychologists, NGOlogists womenstudiologists, political scientists and activist scientists – you all were given a 30yr long free reign. We will leave biologists and ecologists out of this phase. We will be looking to hire a brace or two of statisticians though for reparsing altered raw climate records and adjudicating scientific research.

  15. All are governed under a tri-branched republic system in which the rights of a single human are greater in importance than of any single group. If the group who voted for someone else rather than Trump don’t like it, try a revolutionary coo so you could change our system or you could also leave. Whining about it just makes you sound like a mosquito. Irritating insects but somewhat tolerable.

Comments are closed.