Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Back in March, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt questioned the human contribution to climate change. The Sierra Club immediately raised an ethics complaint against Pruitt’s climate heresy.
The Energy 202: EPA finds no problems with Pruitt’s climate change views
By Dino Grandoni August 3 at 8:39 AM
When Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt went on CNBC last March and said that he did not believe carbon dioxide was the “primary contributor” to global warming, he put himself at odds with the scientific stances of many institutions — including, officially, the EPA itself.
But an internal EPA review has found that the agency can tolerate such a disagreement.
A panel of EPA scientists convened to investigate Pruitt’s commentary found that the administrator was not in violation of the agency’s scientific integrity policy because that policy “explicitly protects differing opinion.”
“This expression of opinion, which was not made in a decisional context, is fully within the protections of EPA’s Scientific Integrity Policy and does not violate that Policy,” the panel found, according to a letter sent to the Sierra Club and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon and other outlets. The environmental group filed a complaint in March that prompted the internal review.
…
“It’s clear to me that Pruitt is in violation of basic standards of ethical conduct,” Michael Mann, professor of atmospheric science at Penn State, wrote by email.
Frankly I’m shocked it apparently took the EPA Ethics Committee six months to decide that expressing doubt about a scientific theory is OK. While I am glad the ethics committee eventually reached the only sensible conclusion, the fact this complaint was not immediately laughed out of the EPA in my opinion demonstrates the horrendous pressure on scientists and public figures not to deviate from hardline climate dogma.
A lot of the comments here about Scott Pruitt being an independent ‘not in the pocket of industry’ really made me chuckle. I suggest those who really believe this take a real look into what motivates him:
‘The mission statement of the EPA is simple: “to protect human health and the environment.” It says nothing about promoting economic development or energy security or the glory of fossil fuels. But Pruitt has already carried out an impressive list of corporate favors: He rejected the advice of EPA scientists and approved the use of millions of pounds of a toxic pesticide that causes neurological damage in children; in a gift to Big Coal, he delayed tougher ozone air-pollution rules; he plotted to kill Obama’s signature climate accomplishment, the Clean Power Plan, designed to put America on track to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 32 percent by 2030; he rescinded the Clean Water Rule, allowing countless streams and rivers to be exempted from pollution controls; he undermined regulations on the release of mercury, a potent neurotoxin, from power plants and other sources; and he submitted a budget that would wipe out more than a third of the funding for the agency, including cutting money for scientific research in half.’
Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/scott-pruitt-is-gutting-the-epa-serving-fossil-fuel-industry-w494156
ivankinsman “to protect human health and the environment.” Yes and note, human health comes first. And Pruitt seems to be on the right track in my opinion for many reasons, here’s one:
Healthy self-esteem and optimism is an important part of human health in the societies where average life-expectancy increases about 3 months/year. Why else UN WHO ICD-10 has classified anxieties as an illness? See chapter V. In my opinion healthcare professionals are more competent than politicians to treat the most affected individuals.
I agree that healthy self-esteem is an important factor but I am not sure Scott Pruitt is the man if this also comes at the expense of approving infant-harming pesticides.
By your standards nothing should be approved unless it can be fed to infants and not harm them.
Get real.
Starvation harms infants too, and if no pesticides were ever approved for use, agricultural production would fall off a cliff.
Yours is blatantly ridiculous fearmongering argumentation.
Hully gee, Ivan. You found a source even less credible than the Guardian, Rolling Stone. Cite Mother Jones and your will be on a roll.
What’s wrong with these sources – independent, unbiased. Do you want me to use Breibart or The Cato Institute or Cambridge Analytics?
Your not understanding what is wrong with the Graundiad or Rolling Stone is why you are mocked on this site. It is rather analogous to arguing religion with a Jehovah’s Witness.
Don’t think it is a case of “I’m better than thou”. I am perfectly happy to negate global heating if someone can show me an independently-reviewed article or report from a reputable scientific journal or indeoendent newspaper proving that it is not happening. Can you put up some links for me to look at?
Define “reputable” and/or “independent”.
The only way to learn this subject is a fair amount of reading of the several sides. Curry and Lindzen have the credentials in the field, and following the lame responses to them by the AGW advocates is a very useful enterprise, as is Mann v. McInintyre and MacKittrick on paleoclimatology (also knowing enough history is required to mock Mann et al.).
Doesn’t answer my request my man. I’ve put up my links – show me a few of yours. Think we all know what reputable and independent here … think you’re playing the lawyer trying to avoid giving the evidence.
You posted one link to an article from rock and roll magazine noted for fr@udulent reportage, more than anything else.
Keep talking, you make the point of your silliness better than any words by anyone else could.
And here is a real peach showing a very strong connection between Pruitt and Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris, who had a meeting:
“Twenty days later Pruitt announced his decision to deny a petition to ban Dow’s chlorpyrifos pesticide from being sprayed on food, despite a review by his agency’s scientists that concluded ingesting even minuscule amounts of the chemical can interfere with the brain development of fetuses and infants.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-pruitt-trumps-epa-chief-met-with-dow-chemical-exec-before-rolling-back-a-ban-on-pesticides-2017-6?IR=T
I hope all of you out there who have young kids are still big fans of his actions…
ivankinsman. Chlorpyrifos seems to be about the same as caffeine at least with regard to acute toxicity, CNS effects and teratogenicity. I’d personally choose chlorpyrifos instead of naturally occuring aflatoxins, which maybe present in untreated vegan menu and other reasons.
In my opinion animal proteins are a better than vegan diet also for other reasons. It provides vitamin B, which is essential for CNS development and health. It also avoids a myriad of other, more harmful plant alkaloids than caffeine.
If you want to work with chlorpyrifos pesticide then I suggest you take a look at this first as evidence of what it can do to human health. Pruitt went against the advice of EPA scientists after being lobbied by Dow Chemical (and we all know how much he listens to industry lobbyists):
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-cranor-chlorpyrifos-should-be-banned-20170606-story.html
Having already evaluated hundreds of hazardous materials, what’s one more? Or one more organophosphate to be more precise.
But while we are at it, one of the deadliest substance I’ve some across so far is cholecalciferol when EPA type of civil servants were alarmed to the point of banning it. A.k.a vitamin D. And one reason why I’ve factored in anxieties in the criteria and aim to rise above them when evaluating reasonably foreseeable risks. Perhaps you could try it in your turn.
So, first we find out that this pesticide has been in constant use since the 1960s and that traces of it are everywhere in almost everyone.
Then we find out it is terrible stuff and is going to make us all stupid.
It doesn’t mention it’s allowed to be used in California, where they ban everything. It doesn’t mention that it is used worldwide in over 100 countries. It doesn’t mention that the EPA heavily regulates its use, cannot be used on certain crops or sold for home use, and monitors an acceptable dose level on over a hundred products.
So with this stuff doing damage for 50+years, it clearly has worked its magic on me. I’m OK with it and the saccharin in my morning coffee.
OK, I am assuming the you are not a fetus or an infant, or a pregnant mother – as this is the risk group. However, let’s just say you have a young wife who is pregnant and you live near fields where this pesticide is used … how would you feel about it under those circumstances? Also even Dow AgroSciences says there are cheaper alternatives that it produces.
‘The EPA needs to show that there’s a reasonable certainty of no harm under certain conditions of use, such as the equipment worn by agricultural workers and the amount applied to crops.
“Under the law, if there isn’t sufficient science to demonstrate safety, then EPA is obligated to ban the pesticide,” Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, said. “That’s why a number of similar pesticides, what are called organophosphate pesticides, are no longer in use in the US.
The EPA concluded that chlorpyrifos was not safe for use in residential settings, and the science has only gotten stronger, he said. Ultimately, the agency’s risk assessment indicated that “chlorpyrifos posed significant risks to children, even at very low exposures,” he added.
“There’s simply no way EPA could reach any conclusion other than it should no longer be used on food crops … “What’s outrageous about Scott Pruitt’s decision is that the science is so strong, so overwhelming, that chlorpyrifos causes neurological problems.”‘
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/30/health/epa-chlorpyrifos-decision/index.html
Life is fatal by definition. No one has survived it, but some try to also enjoy it before it ends.
It also does not mention that lifespans and human health have increased by every measure in direct proportion to chemicals being used in food production…more chemicals, people live longer and are healthier.
No chemicals, people starve to death and die young.
BTW…everything is chemicals.
Only one substance on Earth has been proven to have no immediately harmful effect on human infants, and that substance is human breastmilk.
But even that is 100% correlated with a truly calamitous outcome: Every single baby who has ever been exposed to even one drop of breast milk has died or will die within a handful of decades.
Being fearful is easy…getting on with life and making the most of it…well, for some that is apparently impossible. Because they jump at shadows and imagine harms when none are present.
One of the things I always try to do is follow links to the original articles discussed in the main posts to see whether anything was lost in translation. In this case, after reading the Washington Post article, it’s clear that the WP reporter is an idiot for reasons not yet discussed. After opening with a brief discussion of Pruitt’s comment that he doesn’t believe that CO2 is the primary contributor to the warming the planet has experienced, the reporter asserted that this opinion contradicted the formal position of the EPA. But then when the article quoted that position it was clear that there was no conflict – the quoted EPA position merely stated that CO2 was the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to current climate change.
These positions address two completely separate issues. The EPA position merely states that, among all greenhouse gasses (CO2, methane, maybe water vapor since it may or may not be considered a gas, etc), CO2 is the most important for driving up temperatures. Pruitt’s statement addresses the issue of whether the observed warming is mostly natural or mostly due to CO2. The silly journalist with no critical reasoning skills couldn’t parse these statements carefully enough.
In fact, I read nothing in the article indicating that Pruitt’s opinion was at all at odds with scientific evidence.
All the countries in the world that signed up to the 2015 Paris climate agreement bar Syria (civil war), Costa Rica (did not go far enough on climate change) and the USA (makes a laughing stock of the US in its President’s own words) believe that the observed global heating is due to rising CO2 emissions.
Take a look at the list here: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/04/parisagreementsingatures/
Scott Pruitt disbelieves this – why is he right and he thinks that all the experts of these countries are wrong?
Group think hasn’t pampered Galileo, Darwin, Maya, people in the Soviets, Africa or Arctic circle even today, but perhaps you can give a better example.
Dunno what you’re going on about here…
Well, I’m an expert.
There’s nothing scientific about anyone’s opinion.Since there is no scientific procedure capable of empirically measuring how much of any observed warming is natural, and how much is due to CO2, Pruitt’s opinion is less sensible than that of anyone else. To the contrary; absent objective empirical data on the quantitative effect of CO2 on climate, asking anyone to pay higher electricity rates, forego vacations, etc. is irrational since you’re asking people to give up the tangible for fear of the inherently hypothetical.
(should have said “no less sensible”
“Since there is no scientific procedure capable of empirically measuring how much of any observed warming is natural, and how much is due to CO2.”
C’mon man, don’t spout such nonsense without backing it up with some serious independently-reviewed studies in a well-renowned scientific journal that prove this. What a load of horseshit a generalised statement like this is:)
It’s not BS. Use your own brain instead of letting other people do your thinking for you. The only scientific techniques ever used to measure what quantitative impact A has on system B is (1) controlled experiments on system B changing A, e.g. changing voltage across a resistor to see what effect it has on current (and doing it repeatedly to randomize out other unknown variables); and (2) statistically sampling different populations of system B, one with A and one without A, e.g. epidemiological studies taking data on how many of 1000 smokers develop cancer and how many of 1000 non-smokers develop cancer. That’s it. There are no others.
Neither of those options are available to measure the effect of CO2 on climate. There’s only one Earth, and we can’t conduct any kind of controlled experiment on it. That’s why every so-called “study” trying to conclude what ECS or TCR is, either fakes their data using a computer whose results can’t be checked, and/or uses weasel language like “as much as” or “could be” or “estimate.” That’s why the IPCC reports don’t cite any studies to back up its claim to “95% confidence that most of the warming is due to GHGs” – instead they expressly state that this quantitative assessment is only the “judgment” of the authors. If such measurements actually existed, maybe you could explain why the IPCC has to rely on “judgment” for this probabilistic statement?
Tell you what – you describe for me a scientific method that actually measures what percentage of observed warming is due to CO2 and how much is natural. Come back when you’re able to. I’ll wait,
And incidentally, you seem to rely too much on mere words written by glorified professors in journals. I want results, or performance. When one of those professors is able to predict the timing, severity, and location of droughts, or correctly predict the up and down inflection points of temperatures for the next twenty years along with the magnitude of changes, then I’ll start giving credence to their words. But until climate scientists actually start demonstrating they know what they are talking about, their published papers are useless.
Ivan says… “believe that the observed global heating is due to rising CO2 emissions.”
Ivan, be specific, what percentage of the warming since 1950 is due to C02?
Keep in mind that the ONLY surface warming that can POSSIBLY be CO2 related is about 20 percent less then the radiscone weather balloon and satellite data for the troposphere. ( This is per IPCC physics which show the troposphere overall warming 20 percent more then the surface) Therefore ANY surface warming greater then 20 percent LESS then the trophspheric warming, CANNOT be GHG caused! This eliminates about 50 percent of the observed surface warming as being GHG caused.
O.8C increase since 1880. Two thirds of that since 1975. The other statements you make – please show me some evidence of what you are claiming.
Tell us all please, can you feel it is the temperature in your living room (or anywhere else) increases or decreases by 0.8 degrees?
Are you aware planet Earth is currently in an ice age?
That large portions of our planet are frozen to a deadly temperature on a permanent basis?
That the vast polar wastelands are so frigid that a person will die within minutes if one had the misfortune of finding themselves their without the protection of head to toe specialized clothing, and even with such, will die in less than a day without immediate shelter?
Do you know what the percentage of our planet’s surface is so cold, either permanently or seasonally, that it is fatal to human life?
Now, do you know how much of the surface will cause a person to die of heat?
Think hard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badwater_Ultramarathon
http://jtpedersen.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/frozen-penguin-2.jpg
http://static8.depositphotos.com/1037168/965/i/950/depositphotos_9651124-Young-woman-in-white-bikini-standing-on-tropical-beach.jpg
Boy, must be awful to be a fearful wretch who is so out of touch with reality one does not know that freezing is a bad thing, and that people pay money to flock to where it is hot.
May you find some solace and perspective at some point.
Correction ivankinsman: Politicians signed up to the 2015 Paris Accord, not experts.
C’mon on! The agreement was thrashed out based on the evidence that the scientists produced and it was overwhelmingly in favour of global heating. Of course it had to be signed and authorised by the politicians – are the politicians all around the world in cahoots over the climate change hoax? This really had me laughing out loud…
Global heating?
The US has been cooling for over a hundred years.
Don’t you mean climate change?
You need to get your talking points straight if you are going to have a career trolling on WUWT.
Are you out of high school yet Ivan?
The agreement was thrashed out based on the redistribution of wealth. Climate Seance was just the excuse to justify it to the masses.
From here.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
Also, here is another article substantiating Prutt’s supposedly pro-environmental stance:
“Perhaps the most disturbingly effective person on the Trump team is Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt. In the few months since Trump’s inauguration, Pruitt, has transformed the EPA into a supine lap dog for the oil, gas and coal industries and is well on his way to erasing years of environmental policy built on scientific research.”
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-hatchet-pruitt-20170702-story.html
To my knowledge, thanks to EPA, US is the only country to have ever seriously considered carbon dioxide a pollutant. Even Merkel’s EU has exempted carbon dioxide from chemicals law. If US is laughing stock of something, that’s it. Based on that Pruitt has a gigantesque swamp to drain. Pleased it’s in good progress.
Eh? Where is the evidence US has tried to ban CO2 as a pollutant and EU hasn’t? How to you support this statement?
Once you had invented banning into my argument, I can wish you a good day.
Jaakko,
You would deprive a troll of his straw men?
Without logical fallacies, they are nearly unable to speak!
ivankinsman: The true question is not “Is the Earth warming?” It has been since the mid-1800s when the Little Ice Age ended. No one seriously disputes this, though the precision of the amount of warming given in the literature is not justified by the quality of the instruments used to measure the temperature.
The question is actually, “How much, if any, of the warming we’ve observed is caused by human-produced CO2?” The answer to that is “We don’t know.” From 1910 to 1940 there was warming of the same magnitude as between 1980 and 1996. There was global cooling between 1945 or so until the late 1970s. The GCMs were built with CO2 climate sensitivities at levels the programmers thought appropriate, and when the models ran degrees too warm, refused to change their parameters, and instead altered the data from the past to make it seem cooler than it was, and thus today much warmer.
There’s not a alarmist paper produced today that doesn’t contain the words “might”, “could”, “by xxxx year,” “modeled”, and so forth. Science works with predictions to see ifi they are proven correct, not to be used as data in another study. Climate science does not function as true science should.
Ivankinsman, You do know you keep quoting an op-ed, right? That is an opinion-only editorial by a journalist in the one section of the newspaper purposely devoted to fact-only opinions by journalists who get paid to write only opinion pieces. I’m not sure there is a less fact-based source around. I have been reading this site for a decade, I almost never post. I am not sure why the regular posters enjoy wasting time with you, you are one of the least informed posters in the last few years at least. You’ve ceased being entertaining a while back now. There are many truly amazing scientists and informed posters on this site, and your continual trolling, for me at least, has started really annoying me. I now skip entire sections as soon as I see your name. I wish people would just ignore you, you’re quite literally bringing down the whole site. I know people engage with you because they want to make sure that your silly statements are refuted but at this point it’s been well established you truly don’t know anything, you have less than average skills at arguing, and you are rude and often extremely insulting to boot. If you are older than a high-schooler then that fact alone would be truly sad. Even Griff is so much better at this than you are. I do hope that at some point those like me who enjoy a robust exchange of well thought out ideas will stop dealing with you, so that entire threads don’t have to be continually hijaked by arguments that venture on the inane.
Liar liar fraud and bald
http://17663-presscdn-0-49.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2012_12_04-RITGER-C1-Schneider-Award-James-Hansen-029-Mann-web.jpg
Oct. 26, 2012
The Norwegian Nobel Institute has today made a statement affirming that climate scientist, Michael Mann lied when he claimed he was a joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Tom Richard investigating for Examiner.com takes the credit for this sensational scoop. Tom says, “I contacted the Norwegian Nobel Institute to find out if Mann was indeed a Nobel Laureate, winner, etc.” A prompt reply from Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, of The Norwegian Nobel Institute was soon forthcoming. In no uncertain terms Lundestad affirmed, “Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.” Yet lo and behold Mann makes the claim that he has been “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” in the complaint itself
As to the IPCC “certificate” Mann proudly displays on his Facebook page as “proof” Lundestad had this to say, “Unfortunately we often experience that members of organizations that have indeed been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize issue various forms of personal diplomas to indicate that they personally have received the Nobel Peace Prize. They have not.”
This is a great video by Dr. Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State University, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI) and director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC).
He explains exactly how climate deniers work – they know that the science now indisputably proves human induced global heating and so adopt a strategy of trying to shoot the messenger i.e. the scientists whose work has helped to prove it. For anyone who is still sceptical of climate change, I suggest you tune in:
[from your website: “Planet earth has now reached a tipping point or more probably gone beyond this…” riiight, another doomer. -mod]
“Distinguished”? I’ll consider him distinguished when he learns to distinguish his own shiit from his own shinola.
Ivan,
You are hands down a contender in record time.
Keep up the insults my man – I live them because it is proving exactly what I have said about trying to shoot the messenger.
I am really interested in how climate sceptics see the world for their grandchildren. Do they expect it will be all clover and honey and business as usual. They are the ones who will bear the consequences of your inaction and thank the Lord there are millions out there who are now out to combat human induced global warming.
Ivan, a book that might give you some insight into where your attitude seems to be is “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer. That is granting you the status of a sincere writer, not a knowing paid spinner.
No way am I paid Tom. One always has to have this at the back of your mind on this site but this is all what my gut is telling me. I’ll check out Hoffer.
I also suggest you read Professor James Lovelock and his Gaia books. Works as an independent scientist and his books are a real eye opener on how this planet works. For example, his views on nucleur energy have convinced me it is a very viable option for our future energy requirenents.
Ivan, I have not insulted you.
Calling a fool a fool is merely speaking the truth.
If you would like some insults though, I have plenty on hand.
You insult yourself, and everyone here.
Please do tell me, although I doubt you will, why it is that you hate poor people?
Why do you hate the people who live in energy poverty?
Why do you wish to condemn hundreds of millions of infants, and women, and little girls and boys, and their parents and teachers, and everyone they know…why do you want to consign them to perpetual misery and deprivation?
Why do you want to lie to children, and everyone else, by filling their heads with fear mongering nonsense?
Do you remain unaware that many will lose hope based on the lies you spread and perpetuate?
Why Ivan?
Why all the hate?
Why all the love of misery of others?
Why do you condemn them without even so much as a trial?
You are an awful person, I do not need to insult you.
The truth of who you are is bad enough.
That video of Mann you posted did not reflect well on his honesty at all – just using Mann’s own words. Go back and watch it again and see whether Mann’s explanation of the use of the word “trick” squared with the later language in the e-mail “hide the decline.” Here’s a hint for you – it didn’t.
The e-mail he was discussing referred to Mann”s adoption of a procedure intended to hide the discrepancy between tree ring data and instrumental data; the tree rings showed declining temperatures at the same time the instruments were showing rising temperatures, leading logical people to conclude that tree ring data is not reliably accurate. Mann used a “trick” to hide this.
Again – watch the video and ask yourself whether he’s being honest about what his neat “trick” was doing and whether it at all matches the description of “hide the decline.”
and here is his very distinguished academic resume:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/
LOL
Golly, you sure got your snout way up his butt, dontcha?
You so funny!
He has got a very strong research record on human induced climate change and is one of the leading experts in this area. You may hate him and probably Al Gore for their ‘message’ but it is what many people are increasingly tuning in to.
Climate sceptics remind me a bit of Luddites – they can see what is happening but are determined to fight it but the changes the Luddites were facing were re relentless and unstoppable.
If Mann’s hockey stick did not result in a reaction from you along the lines of “WTF!”, you really, really need to read some history of the time period covered. That is before any exploration of grafting instrumental records onto proxies, or the adequacy of the proxies, or the program Mann et al used to derive the hockey stick.
Having a high opinion of Michael Mann is only somewhat better than a psychologist citing Cyril Burt.
Dr. Mann is one if the main contributors to the IPCC climate agreements
I do not hate anyone.
I do, however, pity fools.
I been feeling lots o’ pity lately.
Panic mongering warmistas remind me of Chicken Little, the Boy Who Cried Wolf, scientific illiterates, and various doomsday cultists…they are a combination of credulously timid, gullibly trepidatious, unscientific, unable to keep several ideas in their heads at once, ignorant of Earth history and physics and even the basics of how the atmosphere operates, ridiculously unaware of their own cognitive dissonance, 100% naïve of political reality, and they have simply zero awareness that they have been duped by propaganda so easily and completely that the people who did it must really be having a good laugh.
But do not feel bad…fooling the weak minded is like taking candy from a baby.
Climate skeptics look out their window at times to see what reality is doing rather than mistake the climate model on their computer screen for reality. Alarmist are “Virtual Luddites”.
And here Distinguished Professor Mann explains exactly what is going on with human induced global heating and how quickly it is impacting planet earth:
Dr. Mann refers to Jim Hansen’s paper, so for those interested in this you can find out more about what he focused on here ‘Hell Will Break Loose – Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms’ (17 Sept. 2016):
Dr. Mann refers to how the fossil fuel companies deliberately set out to either deceive or repress information on the danger of climate change. This is an example of one oil company that backs up his statement:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/28/shell-knew-oil-giants-1991-film-warned-climate-change-danger?CMP=share_btn_link
I suppose from the perspective of a fawning sycophant, someone who sees through the bullshit and lies of the person you worship must seem almost like hatred.
Me laddie, you sure are going to feel very silly someday.
I hope it is soon, for your sake.
“Appeal to authority”.
How many of his comments (and links) have only been that?
I went to his website. One of “Individuals” of importance is Christiana Figueres. He seems to believe that she is a champion and an “authority” out to save us from caGW.
In the context of Paris further up the thread, I said this.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/05/epa-ethics-panel-it-is-not-unethical-to-question-climate-dogma/#comment-2573175
An excerpt.
Maybe he didn’t see it but, he didn’t respond.
Maybe because one his authoritative “Indivuals” seems to have a different goal in mind than saving us from “Global Hottering” (or whatever term ivan used)?
mods:
With 30 of the 198 comments, could ivankinsman be legitimacy accused of thread hijacking?
Well, Mann’s lectures on collective mind-reading and morals shadows even Heinrich Kramer.
No, it demonstrates that the Government, replete with red tape order of operations written in concrete, just takes that long to say a simple yes or no. Any questions, ask the vets lined up for care.
Ivankinsman: the annoying little dog next to the big dogs
There are two scientific views. Why do not we stop hatred and work together to solve major scientific issues?
1. Why models do not match global warming hiatus and overestimate temperature?
2. Why models underpredict Arctic sea ice?
3. After 1998 many climate features and teleconnection changed.
Are we missing some very important thing?
We all need to advance Climate Science prediction, do not we?
“We all need to advance Climate Science prediction, do not we?”
Practically speaking, this is not possible. The sine qua non of any scientific endeavor is experimentation – and experimentation is not possible on the climate system. All you can do is sit back and observe its behavior, and effectively without any control at all over what is input into the system. There is no possible way that the type of information needed to have any hope of an accurate predictive model can be gleaned from such observations under those conditions.
Moreover, since even the climate scientists agree that climate changes have to be observed over, at a minimum, 30 year intervals since everything in shorter intervals is just “noise,” even if by some astronomical coincidence, CO2 concentrations were to rise and fall, and rise and fall, enough times over respective 30+ year intervals to get the data you would need, it would take centuries to accomplish the task.
No way, no how, is any predictive model of the Earth’s climate going to be reliably accurate. .
I do get very tired of disagreeing, even strongly disagreeing, with another viewpoint being labeled as “hatred” or “phobia” or some other label that implies the opposing viewpoint is based on emotion and can’t possibly be based on valid reasoning.
Agreed Gunga Din. Once emotions start getting involved – or politics – then it becomes like two enemies on a battlefield. Let the scientific evidence speak for itself. I personally am prepared to listen to global heating sceptics if they really can show that the worsening climate phemonena can be put down to climate with no input from human produced CO2.
What also interests me is what the climate sceptics here were saying at the time about Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and the Ozone Hole prior to their being banned. I have a feeling pretty much the same thing – oh, CFCs have no impact on the atmosphere – the Ozone Hole is a natural phenomenon that will soon right itself – you just leave it to nature. Human produced CFCs causing damage to stratospheric ozone – what a bunch of boloney!
ivan, take the politics out of climate science and there would be no threat from CO2 requiring Paris or any other attempts to solve a non-problem.
You had said this above:
I replied twice but I guess you didn’t see it. Here’s the second which contains a link to the first.
Now, before changing the subject to Al Gore’s first attempt to milk the Green Cow, please explain how the Christiana Figueres’s quote and the Edenhofer quote (“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.) are evidence of “science” and not politics?
PS No, I don’t “hate” you.
Well, I think it will be very difficult to continue with the current economic model. Professor James Lovelock believes that unfettered capitalism is continuing along the road to planetary disaster and I also like some of the theories espoused by Naomi Klein which you can view here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/books/review/naomi-klein-this-changes-everything-review.html
Maurice Strong also said this in an interview with The Guardian in 2015:
“Maurice Strong (died 2015): “Look at the history of planet earth – there’s only a minute moment of time when the conditions have been conducive to human life. We are literally altering those conditions and my motivation is to alert people to this. I believe that we need a degree of cooperation on these issues that goes beyond anything we’ve ever seen before. During a war we get a lot of co-operation, but we also get a lot of rivalry. In the second world war, nations co-operated. There are examples of co-operation during periods of special need. But things are happening now that could really affect the future of humanity and that’s what drives me. It doesn’t mean I’m right about everything, but that is my purpose.”
And this is supported by Professor Lovelock:
[The Guardian, 29 March 2010]:
“One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is modern democracy. Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
If the UN IPCC 2015 Paris Agreement really produces the results then, in my opinion, this is the best way forward with or without the USA. Another good example of global cooperation is the banning of CFCs ref. the Ozone Hole. If, however, global heating continues unabated then a “war scenario'” is probably going to be required.
So you admit it’s not about the science but the politics.
https://youtu.be/OJ5hcwa7KZI?t=214
Well, I blew the video clip.
I was supposed to be just her saying, “Thank you for your cooperation.”
Michael “Hockey Schtick” Mann lecturing anyone on on ethics is the equivalent of Slick WIllie leading a symposium on marital fidelity…
“Truth is like a lion. Turn it loose and it will defend itself” – St. Augustine