Michael Bastasch
2:01 PM 07/25/2017
President Barack Obama’s chief science adviser compared the Trump administration’s use of “red teams” to debate climate science to a “kangaroo court” meant to “create a sense of continuing uncertainty about the science of climate change.”
“But I suspect that most of the advocates of the scheme are disingenuous, aiming to get hand-picked non-experts from federal agencies to dispute the key findings of mainstream climate science and then assert that the verdict of this kangaroo court has equal standing with the findings of the most competent bodies in the national and international scientific communities,” former President Barack Obama’s science czar John Holdren wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed published Monday.
“The purpose of that, of course, would be to create a sense of continuing uncertainty about the science of climate change, as an underpinning of the Trump administration’s case for not addressing it. Sad,” Holdren wrote in his op-ed, railing against the “perversity of the climate science kangaroo court.”
The idea of using red teams gained traction with Trump administration officials this year after former Obama administration official Steve Koonin suggested the arrangement in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in April.
Koonin, a physicist and former top Department of Energy official, argued red teams could strengthen climate science by exposing its faults and uncertainties. The military and intelligence communities often pit red teams against blue teams to expose weaknesses in policies and strategies being pursued. It could work in a similar way for climate science, with a red team of researchers given the goal of finding pitfalls in blue team’s scientific argument.
“A Red/Blue exercise would have many benefits,” Koonin wrote in the WSJ. “It would produce a traceable public record that would allow the public and decision makers a better understanding of certainties and uncertainties. It would more firmly establish points of agreement and identify urgent research needs.”
Many climate scientists, however, say it has no place in their field. One group of prominent researchers even argued red team exercises amount to “dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions” that undercut mainstream science.
Holdren argued the scientific peer-review process already acts as a check on bad science, further arguing a red team exercise is a ‘right-wing’ plot against climate science.
“Climate science has been repeatedly ‘red-teamed,’ both by groups of avowed contrarians sponsored by right-wing groups and by the most qualified parts of the world’s scientific community,” Holdren wrote in his op-ed.
“The right wing’s ‘red team’ efforts have consistently been characterized by brazen cherry-picking, misrepresentation of the findings of others, recycling of long-discredited hypotheses, and invention of new ones destined to be discredited,” Holdren wrote. “Almost none of this material has survived peer review to be published in the respectable professional literature.”
Despite this, Trump administration officials have begun looking for scientists to participate in a red-blue team exercise to test scientific claims about man-made global warming. Media reports suggest the Trump team is considering asking Koonin to lead the exercise.
The administration also sought recommendations for who should participate in the red team exercise from the Heartland Institute, which is known for its skepticism of man-made warming.
“The White House and the Environmental Protection Agency have reached out to the Heartland Institute to help identify scientists who could constitute a red team,” Heartland spokesman Jim Lakely told reporters Monday.
Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Tags: Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Energy, John Holdren
A crowd sourced “NRP (National Reading Panel) that reviewed research on the teaching of reading.” style of “published paper check” could be a good way of slimming down the junk research literature that inhabits climate science.
Perhaps we could agree a list of conditions that papers need to meet to be considered ‘reasonable’.
It should not matter what the conclusion of the paper is – for or against (anything) but do the papers meet conditions of publication eg
1) All data and methods are included in an accessible manner.
2) All methods use (stats, pre/post sample selection) are standard or justified if not.
3) All software used has been proven to work.
4) All reasonable confounding factors acknowledged and justified.
5) Best sources of data used or substandard sources justified.
Etc
Etc
I suspect we could develop a list of conditions to be meet regardless the content of the paper.
Some papers will require some judgement calls by experts but conditions 1, 2, 3 should be clear and unambiguous.
Thoughts?
Ps its a bit like peer review should be in an ideal world…..
This process would winnow the piles of crap papers by about 97%!
Holdren should welcome debate from those who hold differing views. Is there a better way to test hypotheses/ideas? The open and honest collision of opinion should lead to better opinions . . . And for the same reason people like Steven Mosher should be very welcome here. Those who disagree with him would be better served by challenging his views directly, and benefitting from him challenging theirs, instead of engaging in peurile personal abuse . . .
While we are at it, why have a trial when the experts, the police, have already heard the objections and don’t think that there is any merit to them.
Don’t you trust the experts?
Does Holdren have something against kangaroos?
Or is it courts he dislikes?
He quite obviously knows the jig is up.
As is typical in dealing with climate extremists we see them project their deceptive methods and motives onto others.
Nothing resembles a kangaroo court more than what the climate extremists have practiced in pushing their apocalyptic clap trap to the top of the agenda.
It is the extremists who have been caught misrepresenting the science, silencing critics, rewriting history, colluding to hide data, destroyed careers of critics and as we see here, hide drone debate.
Bring on the red team.
We should have a Special Science Counsel to look into climate change.
In keeping with other Special Counsel teams it should be completely unbiased. I suggest that all the scientists in the team must be recommended by the Heartland Institute. (It would help if they had never voted Democrat, as well.)
Problem solved.
Whatever Holdren says needs to be vetted – by a vet.
Reading this site alongside some from the “other side” (SkS, Open Mind etc) I am beginning to wonder what the argument is actually all about. If you look at some of the potential “Red Team” that are genuine climate scientists such as Judith Curry, John Christie, Roy Spencer, Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen, they actually agree with most of what the
Blue Team thinks. All believe:
1. Global warming has happened, is happening and will probably continue to happen in coming decades.
2. A significant part of the cause is an increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels
The points of disagreement are limited and rather nuanced:
1. The level of sensitivity (TCS, ECS) of surface warming to changes in CO2 proportion in the atmosphere
2. How much of the change is natural variation
Um, that’s it.
The big disagreements are not over the fact of AGW, but its severity and possible consequences. How much will sea level rise? How will the weather change – more severe or more benign? (evidence is beginning to point to the latter) Desertification or greening? (evidence is beginning to point to the latter), more deaths from heat or fewer from cold?
…and so on.
So, the first thing any discussion should do is decide on all the points that they agree on and just concentrate on what the best estimates of ECS and TCS are, and whether perceived risks justify the mind-bobblingly huge costs of trying to mitigate. Personally, given the long timescales involved and slow nature of the process, I believe adaptation is likely to be more effective and a lot less costly than mitigation.
For example:
The UK’s recently announced policy of 100% electric cars by 2040 will involve providing about 36,000 gWh of new power generation each year – roughly doubling domestic electrical power consumption. That is 41 gW of new installed generation plant which is either 12 new 3gW nuclear powerstations, or 27,000 wind turbines (working at 30% capacity), or 1,600 square miles of solar farms (40 miles square or 2.6 Greater Londons).
To carry all that electricty to everybody’s domestic car charging point will require roughly double the quantity of copper cable. Imagine the cost of all that copper and the disruption and cost of digging up all the roads to lay that cable and replacing all the pylons and substations.
Billions and billions and billions of pounds. Who is going to pay for it all? What will be the implications for our economy?
Total and utter “pie in the sky”.
to plug in an electric car at my house and any other house with a drive we’d just plug an extension cable in, in the garage. No copper required.
assumptions about UK car charging don’t take into account well advanced proposals for ‘smart charging’ in the UK – a system will mange it so cars don’t all charge at same time overnight. That means we may need more generation, but not all at once.
This week’s proposal on demand management/battery use embodies that idea
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986
Besides, the already planned growth in wind power (approved schemes) is 1.5 times today’s installed total… and its not the only option
Demand management and smart charging can help a bit on the margins, but the energy needed to shift all those cars and people around the country is broadly the same, whether you use electricity or fossil fuels. We have to either reduce our car use or build more electrical generation and transmission infrastructure.
You misunderstand my point about the copper cable. Sure, your extra single charging point is not a problem, but if everybody has a charging point at their house then the amount electric current flowing down the mains supply cables will roughly double (in the UK the total amount of energy used by petrol engine cars annually is about the same as current domestic electricity consumption – 360,000 gigawatt hours). Broadly speaking, at a constant voltage, if you double the current flowing down a cable you have to double its cross-sectional area or, in other words, double the amount of copper in that cable.
If you try and force double the current down the existing cable, it will heat up, burn off the insulation and possibly melt! Existing domestic cable infrastructure cannot cope with a doubling of the size of the cables carrying that electricity. You cannot dodge physics!
Besides, the already planned growth in wind power (approved schemes) is 1.5 times today’s installed total
There are currently around 8,000 wind turbines on land and sea around the UK, so a further 27,000 is 3.4 times today’s installed capacity – and those will be the biggest turbines requiring the most distance between them to avoid interference. Placement is going to become a major problem. Turbines slow down the wind behind them and cause turbulence. You need strong clean wind for a turbine to work efficiently and finding new places where the wind is not affected by existing turbines is going to be increasingly difficult. To me, wind turbines are the most intrusive form of renewable energy, visually, bird/bat mashingly, and acoustically – but at least they do not use up valuable agricultural land like solar farms. These provide a different variation of the food or fuel problem seen in the corn belt of the USA.
But solar panels don’t use up good agricultural land – UK planning law does not allow that and on the farm land they do occupy, grazing or chicken farming still takes place. Check the NFU guidelines. Then there are plenty of rooftops -and solar there is used locally and does not contribute to load on the grid. Besides, we are investing in more HVDC interconnectivity (the Western link, for example).
Most new wind currently is offshore and will increasingly be using the larger 12MW turbines. There are what 30GW of offshore sites identified…
Good job, Griff! You have a hopeless idea to paper over every other hopeless idea! Maybe we could all wear battery packs while we bike to work and charge them from the bike generators and then plug into the grid we paid for to power the plants that make the Green crap! Soon we’ll all be in our 80’s and pedalling our butts off to get to the hospital before our hearts give out. Doesn’t matter! They won’t have any power to restart us anyway!
your other point is well made:
yes, I reckon those people do accept:
1. Global warming has happened, is happening and will probably continue to happen in coming decades.
2. A significant part of the cause is an increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels
I am however unsure if even a majority of the skeptic community represented on this site accept those 2 starting points?
(which may not be a problem)
I don’t think anybody in power knows or cares what people who read these blogs think – until they vote!!
The level of general ignorance on both sides of the argument is immense. The only people on this side of the fence who really know their stuff are the scientists mentioned in my first post – and all of them accept the reality of AGW. Their only argument is whether it is going to be a catastrophe and whether mitigation or adaptation should be an appropriate policy response. More and more I am coming round to the view that, in the light of the uncertainty and long timescales surrounding the extent and impacts of AGW, adaptation makes much more economic and practical sense.
For instance, sea level is rising at 3mm a year, up from about 1mm a year at the start of the 19th Century. Even if it gradually doubles in rate over the next 80 years, that is still only a rise of 0.36 of a metre (1 foot 3 inches) before 2100. I think that is enough time to put in the necessary flood defences. Florida will probably become the new Netherlands. The best use of a wind turbine is to slowly pump water uphill. You won’t drown if the wind stops blowing for a few days. Something the Dutch discovered about 500 years ago!
What global warming?
Sorry, typo, that should be “360,000 gWh of new power generation each year” or 360 terrawatt hours. That is derived from a petrol and diesel fuel consumption of domestic cars of circa 28 million metric tonnes with each tonne providing 12,900 kWh of energy.
All the other numbers are calculated off that figure.
Griff carries that kind of power around as spending money!
Having a science Red Team misses the point. As does having it full of climate scientists.
I and others should not care what climate science comes up with. We should care about the accuracy and uncertainty in the output of said science if it is used in the real world. So a Red Team would be on application of the scientific findings to life.
It would be a short conversation.
That’s it. John Holdren’s 15 minutes is up.
If the science was as solid as he wants to believe, then there would be no problem disproving anything the “red team” comes up with.
It would seem to me, any scientist should welcome any additional eyes on the work – after all, that is the scientific method – to attempt to disprove a hypothesis in the crucible of scientific scrutiny in an iterative fashion until the best truth remains. I say best truth because we do all know science is never settled.
This should be the best opportunity for the warmists to silence the skeptics once and for all – instead the initial posturing is one of fear – not confidence that their warming hypothesis will hold up. Trying to discredit the process would seem to indicate a weakness in the argument.
I, for one, would change my position should the blue team come through with their basic hypothesis in tact. Given that until now no one has published the extent of warming that is attributable to human causes, the bar is set very high, indeed.
Let’s face it, every breath a person puts out increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. Living at 98.6 degrees contribute to atmospheric warming. With over 7 billion people, that is a lot of CO2 and heat input. So, at a minimum, there is a human input. At what point is the human input noise in the signal, or become a contributing factor. That is what the blue team has to quantify. And they are scared. And should be.
Enter minority opinions? Heaven forbid. does anyone remember Alfred Wegener?
Enter minority opinions into the discussion? Heaven forbid. Does anyone remember Alfred Wegener?
“The right wing’s ‘red team’ efforts have consistently been characterized by brazen cherry-picking, misrepresentation of the findings of others, recycling of long-discredited hypotheses, and invention of new ones destined to be discredited,”
That sounds more like his own performance:
https://youtu.be/nwWqZ6_J2w0
Curry and Lewis are luke warmers. They are more like the “green” team. For the red team, we need scientists who believe CO2 is NOT a significant climate driver. They will have already concluded this based on the evidence. They need to present science they believe negates the hypothesis that man-generated CO2 will cause damaging global warming.
Name me a climate scientist who believes that CO2 “NOT a significant climate driver”. There are a few who might quibble with the “significant” bit, but all the most respected scientists labelled “deniers” by Michael Mann at least believe CO2 is “climate driver”.
By your definition, Lindzen, Spencer and Christy are also “Luke Warmers”.
Spencer, Christy and Lindzen ARE luke warmists. What a red team should do is evaluate AGW objectively, even considering the possibility that CO2 is not a significant driver of climate change. (leave no stone unturned) Of course, there would be many aspects of red teaming that fit luke warmism, too. Justifiable critiques of the ipcc’s own admitted shortcomings. Things such as the uncertainty of solar forcings, cloud feedbacks and the modeling of water vapor for starters. Some aspects of red teaming would be controversial while others not. That doesn’t mean that all aspects shouldn’t be covered…
Whereas virtually all the AGW scientists are completely convinced that we are on the fast escalator to Hell! Just like Holdren. They’ve all been crying disaster for 40 years and here we are with global temperatures nearly identical to the 1970’s! It’s clearly the greatest farce since the Tulip Bubble except this time it’s the innocent public who pays for it!
“Name me a climate scientist who believes that CO2 “NOT a significant climate driver”.”
That depends on what you call “significant”. Correct me if I am wrong, but Curry, one of your “lukewarmer” examples, says she is not sure human-derived CO2 is a problem for the world.
She apparetly doesn’t think CO2’s effects are significant, although she obviously believes there is some effect, however small. Curry, it seems to me, is taking a “wait and see” attitude, and that is the attitude one should take in this case.
CO2 may have an effect on the atmosphere, but then again, it may not, for various reasons, and noone knows the answer to this at this time. We don’t know what CO2 is doing in the atmosphere, and are unable to measure its effects because they are so small, and anyone who claims they can is blowing smoke.
The red team could also argue the case from the standpoint of asking why the many predictions made by the blue team have failed over the decades as well as arguing science based understandings of the physics. The science involved in climate science can be endlessly debated in large part because there is much that science does not know at this time concerning the many interacting drivers which comprise climate shifts.
I would think that attacking the warmists talking points of the dangers which they claim are headed our way would be a potent tool to use against their fixed position of settled science, as if everything is known about what drives the climate of this planet. This argument would also be something that would be more readily understood by reasonably educated people, who might follow the debate. Also, bringing up topics such as SLR, more severe storms, unprecedented Arctic melting, etc would aid in exposing the argument that the warmists have tampered with the data. The use of historical data to disprove claims of unprecedented changes in natural systems would be a strong argument, and also one that even an average person could grasp.
Here, here!
Pedant alert: Note the correct spelling – not the usual erroneous “hear, hear” 😉
Search, and ye shall find….
“Hear, hear” is equivalent to today’s “ditto” or “right on”.
As regards unprecedented artcic melting, there is very solid, collated historical evidence which shows we have much lower sea ice extent now than at any time since 1850 (the start of the data collection period).
all records from shipping, whaling, expeditions, submarines under the ice, everything, has been examined and collated.
Griff, stop with the bull crap!
You have been told several times that what you promote are based on VERY low resolution and scanty data,vast areas of the worlds oceans were never measured from 1850 to 1979.
You have also been told repeatedly, that CURRENTLY the Arctic ice extent is well above average for the entire Holocene.
Stop being stupid.
1870 was the end of the most recent glacier building episode, the end of the Little Ice Age. It’s not remarkable that sea ice is still receding as the warming that began in 1870 is still the trend.
Griff can’t stop being stupid anymore than a person can change their eye color.
Which HuffPo story is that from?
Griff…the last Arctic melt was back in the 1920s/30s. That means no submarines, no satellites, and no direct observations of the total Arctic sea ice expanse. So there can be no high resolution comparison between the Arctic conditions of now and back then.
…”lower sea ice extent now than at any time since 1850 (the start of the data collection period).” Well yes, perhaps so. I say perhaps because I haven’t checked to see that the historical evidence has been fully and accurately collated. But for the sake of discussion, let’s stipulate that it has. So effing what?
A quick Google inquiry (“when was the end of the little ice age?) returns, “The Little Ice Age is a period between about 1300 and 1870…”. If the LIA ended about 1870 and we started collecting data in 1850 is it really so startling or telling that we are seeing relatively low sea ice extent today? Is it? Is it really?!? Take all the time you need.
In other news, the sun rose in the east this morning.
except the predictions are pretty damn good.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/03/documenting-the-global-extent-of-the-medieval-warm-period/comment-page-1/#comment-2387406
[excerpt]
The following history on the subject of the MWP may be of interest – I wrote this article for E&E in 2005.
Willie Soon has managed to hang on despite many attacks, but my friend and co-author Sallie Baliunas was driven from Harvard-Smithsonian, reportedly through the actions of John Holdren, now Obama’s Chief Scientific Advisor.
I suggest that the conduct of people like Holdren and those who collaborated with them should be thoroughly investigated by the new Trump administration.
Regards, Allan
DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS IN KYOTOVILLE
The global warming debate heats up
by Allan M. R. MacRae
Energy and Environment, Feb 2005
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/28/the-team-trying-to-get-direct-action-on-soon-and-baliunas-at-harvard/#comment-811913
[excerpt]
In the April 2003 issue of Energy and Environment, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-authors wrote a review of over 250 research papers that concluded that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were true climatic anomalies with world-wide imprints – contradicting Mann’s hockey stick and undermining the basis of Kyoto. Soon et al were then attacked in EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union.
…
In both cases, the attacks were unprofessional – first, these critiques should have been launched in the journals that published the original papers, not in EOS. Also, the victims of these attacks were not given advanced notice, nor were they were given the opportunity to respond in the same issue. In both cases the victims had to wait months for their rebuttals to be published, while the specious attacks were circulated by the pro-Kyoto camp.
*****************
“The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement.”
Karl Popper (and Me)
+10
I disagree.
Holdren, the Obama court jester, re-appears.
The global warming debate is primarily about one parameter – the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 (aka ECS, TCS, etc.). Let’s call this climate sensitivity ECS for brevity.
Global warming alarmists allege that ECS is high and Earth will experience catastrophic warming due to increasing atm. CO2.
Skeptics say ECS is low and any warming due to increasing atm. CO2 will be harmless or beneficial.
The alarmist position is founded on allegations of high ECS, which are based on assumptions of strong positive feedbacks for which there is NO supporting evidence.
Furthermore, there is ample evidence that ECS is low. The most credible information is the full-scale temperature data of our planet. Earth temperature since 1850 has warmed, cooled, warmed, and remained ~flat, all for multi-decadal periods, even as CO2 increased from ~280ppm to ~400 ppm. This full-Earth-scale test shows that increasing atm. CO2 is NOT a significant driver of global warming.
Climate sensitivity (ECS) is no more than ~1C/(2xCO2) and probably less, so there is no real global warming crisis.
Many trillions of dollars and many thousands (even millions) of lives have been squandered on what is clearly false, and probably fraudulent claims of high ECS.
Well put and irrefutable, Allan!
Thank you John.
For those who prefer a bit more information (and more complexity), please see points 1, 2 and 3 below.
There is incontrovertible evidence that global temperature T drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives global temperature. This fact was demonstrated in my January 2008 paper at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf and verified by others, such as Humlum et al 2013
Other strong drivers of CO2 also exist, but the strong correlation of dCO2/dt vs T and the resulting 9-month lag of CO2 after T demonstrates that CO2 is NOT a major driver of temperature – if it were otherwise, the close correlation of dCO2/dt vs T and the resulting 9-month lag of CO2 after T would not exist.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah5/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
Many seem reluctant to accept of even discuss this reality, or chose to confuse it with unnecessary complications that obscure the basic fact:
“CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales – the future cannot cause the past.”
Regards, Allan
Background Information:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/
Observations and Conclusions:
1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record,
2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, P.Eng. Calgary, June 12, 2015
Excellent comments, Allan.
Zero evidence that it is less than 1C
Hello Mosh.
There is zero evidence that ECS is significantly greater than 1C, which would require positive feedbacks. It is incumbent upon the global warming alarmists to prove otherwise, which they have failed to do despite billions of dollars in funding and decades of effort. .
The skeptics have a strong case that there is no real global warming crisis, for example:
There is NO evidence that ECS is high or that CO2 drives significant warming and ample contrary evidence. that it is low. Repeating from above:
“Earth temperature since 1850 has warmed, cooled, warmed, and remained ~flat, all for multi-decadal periods, even as CO2 increased from ~280ppm to ~400 ppm. This full-Earth-scale test shows that increasing atm. CO2 is NOT a significant driver of global warming.”
Also, if ECS was significant, CO2 would not lag temperature at all measured time scales and this relationship would not be apparent in the data record.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah5/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
Finally, the global warming alarmists have destroyed their credibility through the following activities:
ECS wildly exaggerated by false positive feedbacks and resulting model over-predictions of warming;
Fabricated aerosol data to force-hindcast the cooling of ~1940-1975;
False claims of serious global warming and wilder weather that have not materialized
Intimidation by warmists of journals, institutions and academics – see the Climategate emails;
Adjustments to historic and current temperature data;
The MBH98 etc hokey stick, Hide the Decline, Mike’s Nature trick, etc.;
The doctored SPM reports of the IPCC;
Eliminating the MWP and LIA from the climate record;
Grid-connected wind and solar power;
Forcing intermittent non-dispatchable “green power” into the grid ahead of much cheaper dispatchable power;
Destabilization of power grids by “green energy” schemes;
Corn ethanol and other subsidized food-for-fuels;
Carbon taxes, carbon trading, etc.;
Brainwashing of children and adults and the spreading of false fears;
Vilification of fossil fuels, which provide 86% of global primary energy;
Spreading fear of warmer weather when cool temperatures are by far the greatest killer of mankind;
Increasing energy costs driving up excess winter deaths;
Energy poverty, “Heat or Eat”.
… and the list goes on …
Regards, Allan
I just can’t stop picturing my youngest child sticking his fingers in his ears when we try to explain some reality that is inconsistent with his preconceived views.
Nowadays I send them what’s-up messages.
Quote: Holdren argued the scientific peer-review process already acts as a check on bad science …
Nonsesnse. It acts as a check on anyone who dares give an alternate opinion, and thus undermine the consensus view.
Ralph
If Obama’s people use the term ‘Kangaroo Court’, you can bet that’s what they assembled for themselves.
He’s really very predictable.