Trump Disbands Climate Committee: Committee Vows to Continue

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

President Trump has disbanded a 15 person committee whose job was to interpret a 13 agency, 600+ page climate report, and tell the President what to do. But the credibility of the report is in tatters, after it was discovered that the authors edited out a highly embarrassing section from an earlier draft, which would have distracted from their doomsday narrative.

The Trump administration just disbanded a federal advisory committee on climate change

By Juliet Eilperin August 20 at 7:00 AM

The Trump administration has decided to disband the federal advisory panel for the National Climate Assessment, a group aimed at helping policymakers and private-sector officials incorporate the government’s climate analysis into long-term planning.

The charter for the 15-person Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment — which includes academics as well as local officials and corporate representatives — expires Sunday. On Friday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s acting administrator, Ben Friedman, informed the committee’s chair that the agency would not renew the panel.

The committee was established in 2015, but its members were not appointed until last summer. They convened their first meeting in the fall. Moss said members of the group intend to keep working on their report, which is due out next spring, even though it now will lack the official imprimatur of the federal government. “It won’t have the same weight as if we were issuing it as a federal advisory committee,” he said.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/08/20/the-trump-administration-just-disbanded-a-federal-advisory-committee-on-climate-change/

This particular climate report may go down as one of the most ineptly politicised documents in Washington DC history.

First we had the ridiculous claim from the New York Times that they had to leak the climate report, to prevent the Trump Administration suppressing it – even though draft copies are publicly available.

The New York Times later appended the following corrections to their sensationalist claims that the report was being suppressed;

Correction: August 9, 2017
An article on Tuesday about a sweeping federal climate change report referred incorrectly to the availability of the report. While it was not widely publicized, the report was uploaded by the nonprofit Internet Archive in January; it was not first made public by The New York Times.

Correction: August 15, 2017
An article last Tuesday about a sweeping federal climate change report misstated the professional credentials of Katharine Hayhoe, who contributed to the report. She is a professor at Texas Tech University, not a government scientist.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html

The botched NYT story focussed attention on the report, which revealed multiple climate shenanigans – alleged adjustments to published data, and the removal of an entire section which suggested the 1930s dust bowl years experienced more extreme hot weather than today’s climate.

The committee which wasn’t renewed was supposed to provide recommendations to the President when this tattered piece of political theatre finally limped across the finish line.

No wonder members of the disbanded committee are worried that without the authority of the Federal Government, their scientific recommendations “won’t have the same weight”.

Advertisements

183 thoughts on “Trump Disbands Climate Committee: Committee Vows to Continue

    • Big swamp. Lots of nasty critters slithering about, whining to Obama appointed judges. Takes time. And climate is only one patch of it. We got Obamacare, WOTUS, CPP, illegal aliens v. sanctuary cities, and much more to clean up at the same time.

      • Indeed. “Big f’n Swamp” IMHO :) Without another term he doesn’t stand a chance, and there’s a big risk he’ll be consumed by the swamp itself in that time frame. It may take multiple assaults on the swamp by different people using different strategies.

        The Swamp wasn’t built in a day, I think it’s important to remember that.

      • @Bartleby – depends on how aggressive the ‘gators want to get about defending their patch of malaria-infested mud. Too aggressive, they’re not going to get “relocated” where they can’t hurt anyone else; they’ll find themselves turned into footwear and chicken substitute.

    • So they committed fraud. Who is going to be prosecuted? Its not enough to “Drain the Swamp”. It will just be filled again as soon as there is no more Trump. There MUST be consequences. Do NOT pass Go.

      • I commend the book about Thatcher’s problems with the British coal miners, “The Enemy Within”.
        Trumps problem in attempting to drain the swamp is identical to that faced by Thatcher.
        She won, despite the odds.

      • Tempting as that may be, you can’t prosecute committee members when you don’t like the results of their work. Good people won’t do it anymore. Just throw it out, throw them out, and move on.

    • Just wondering about something…..Do you reckon that any of the members of this committee would be able to explain why the temperature at the Nashville, TN, national weather service monitoring station dropped from about 95 degrees F to about 86 degrees F during yesterday’s solar eclipse? Do you think that the shadow of the moon caused all of the greenhouse gases — water vapor and CO2 included — to ‘piffle’ out of existence or something during the few minutes of totality? Wot a hoot. Them ain’t chickens comin’ home t’ roost. Them’s buzzards.

    • The dodgy makeup job is starting to crack. Do they really believe their manic believers are going to fund them? Australia’s own flim-flam Flannery has received his lifestyle change.This is a script outline worthy of Monty Python.

    • They should be stripped of all credentials, told to return federal property, and cautioned about any future representations of federal association and subject matter expertise. Pretty much like any fired employee caught in an office crime. Plus warned about any attempts at subversion.

      • Mike

        The problem is the scientific community seem able to produce whatever they want and say whatever they want with no threat to their qualifications for misleading science.

        Do we know of any scientists over the last 40 years of the climate scare who have had their professional qualifications rescinded? It happens in law, in commerce, in medicine, why not science?

        And whilst scientists can’t be punished for publishing one paper that’s proven wrong, shouldn’t there be a publicly accessible scorecard system that tracks a scientists successes Vs their failures throughout their lives. If nothing else, it might encourage them to get at least something right before they fall off their perch.

      • Hotscot – There is a publicly accessible scorecard system, and they control most of it: publication and reference counts. If you create another system, without having first drained the swamp, they will easily control that system too.

      • Be careful about stripping scientists of their qualifications – in the current hysteria the liars and adjusters hold the majority of places in academia. They would jump on any mechanism which would enable them to strip the sceptics who still practice real science of credibility by claiming they were so bad at their science they had to be disqualified.
        That’ why Trump is doing such a good job, he’s attacking their structures and money. Hitting them where it really hurts. Now in the U.K. If only our pathetic MPs would hold the wind (subsidy) farmers to account by demanding the money back if the bird and whale killing installations failed to reach – let’s be reasonable – and say 70 per cent of the output they claimed they would generate when hustling through planning permission, we might see some real gnashing of teeth.

  1. Have read the entire 5OD of NCR4. It is really awful. Judith Curry has a thread up for serious red team contributions discrediting it. Skeptical Folks as diverse as Nic Lewis and Paul Homewood have already made major apecific contributions, as has JC herself. I suspect Judith is doing this because she has been approached as one of the potential formal reviewers, and is crowdsourcing data via her Denizens. I urge all interested WUWT commenters to contribute to this effort.

    • It’s my impression that J. Curry’s call for a “red team” analysis of the
      report is not to encourage contributions discrediting it but
      to foster less polemics and a more discerning parsing of the underlying
      data and the pseudo-political assumptions that have been slipped into
      the commentary.

      The data in a lot of the studies cited should be questioned too.

  2. Good news, thanks. Now what is needed to sever the US connection to the UN climate programs altogether?

    • Do you think it may help if a border fence was built around the strangely parasitoid little foreign country that’s called The District of Columbia?

      (Look up the definition of ‘parasitoid’ to see if you don’t agree with the usage in this case.)

  3. ” ….. credibility of the report is in tatters, after it was discovered that the authors edited out a highly embarrassing section from an earlier draft….”

    Report was hacked by none other but the Russian tzar Vladimir Velikiy Putin in person (просто шучу, honest)

  4. If committee members want to continue meeting, making decisions and issuing reports, that is their business. But they my do so on their own dime, they have no government authority, and they cannot meet using any titles or meeting labels that give any impression otherwise.

    • The good news for CAGW fans? The greatly-reduced carbon footprint of the committee, forced to telecon and (horrors) email instead of jetting to Resortville for pre-meeting conference.

      • Libraries are hideously dangerous places though.
        All those IDEAS ,just laying around, waiting to ensnare minds with thoughts counter to the collective.

  5. “Moss said members of the group intend to keep working on their report, which is due out next spring, even though it now will lack the official imprimatur of the federal government. “It won’t have the same weight as if we were issuing it as a federal advisory committee”

    Who is ‘Moss’?

    No, it is not worth sullying my evening to visit the wretched Washpo website of delusionists, news fakers, alarmists and anti-everything not elite coastal democrat.

    The group will keep working on it? For free?

    It was always all activism, never about science.

    What is embarrassing to the Republicans, is this nonsense should have been identified and shut down back in February.

    And Sessions should be seeking their communications, meeting records, travel vouchers.
    Purposely editing out portions embarrassing to alarmists is willful malfeasance.

    Kayhoe deserves some time on a witness stand answering questions about collusion to render a false government report.

  6. Drain the Swamp without further delay. The fake outrage on the part of the committee is that they realize that they authority, if any, derived from the Great Seal of the United States of America. Without the official imprint, they are just people with opinions that will have to compete in the marketplace of ideas. I am sure that idea scares the c*** out of many of them. Drain the Swamp.

  7. A policy based committee to Judge policy based work? One knows the conclusions before one pays for the policy based work. The word “science” does not fit in here?

  8. Moss said members of the group intend to keep working on their report


    I know, I KNOW, we don’t have an office anymore. We are FINISHING this thing ANYWAY!

  9. A couple of tweets by Tom Nelson highlight how completely leftist the “Republicans” in California have gone:

    Tom Nelson‏ @tan123 Aug 14
    California Republicans face backlash for backing climate change program – LA Times

    Tom Nelson‏ @tan123 9h9 hours ago
    Support for climate change bill haunts [California Assembly Minority Leader] Republican Chad Mayes https://twitter.com/tan123/status/899634660174684160

    We need to “disband” these type of supposed Republicans that kowtow and grovel to the left.

      • Most Republicans are RINO’s and are related to the Democrats. Trump is technically a RINO but of a completely different Genus and Species.

      • I am of the opinion that LA and San Francisco should secede and formally declare themselves City States. As long as the US keeps Oakland and Long Beach I can’t really see much of a problem.

      • Well, sure :)

        But I’m a Californian, transplanted from Washington (state) at an early age. I’ve worked the oil fields, orchards and computers of California and my allegiance is with that once Great State now. I won’t give it up for some Moonbat and the wicked witch of the North. Nope. Not on my watch.

      • SMC – As a native Chicagoan, I can tell you that politically Chicago is different from Los Angeles, San Fransico, NYC, and Portland. Chicago is controlled by a political machine that is basically an organized crime syndicate. (And yes a certain former American president was a part of it.) While in LA, San Fransico, Portland, and places on the Left Coast the politicians might actually believe in climate change, in Chicago the politicians care about money and power and nothing else. They will embrace any political belief if they think it will help them stay in power. They have no morals or core belief except in so far as it is useful to them. When this climate change superstition eventually weakens with the voters the Illinois politicians won’t hesitate to walk away from it.

        Don’t believe me? In my life time four governors have gone to prison. The Chief of Detectives of the Chicago Police Department went to prison for setting up jewel heists with the crime sydicate. Judges were caught-up taking bribes in the Grey Lords Scandal. The Illinois Speaker of the House and father of the States Attorney General openly and legally works part time as a lawyer on property tax appeals in Cook County. Obama dismissed the U.S. Attorney who was independent and had sent the last governor to prison and was investigating local Democrats. Its a F*** joke what goes on here politically.

    • @ristvan Yup. And here’s the insidious “Republican” traitor Chad Meyers smiling as he poses with Moonbat Brown and the top CA Democrats just after Chad joined them to vote for the climate change idiocy:

      • I honsetly think Moonbeam has seen his last Gubernatorial term. His unilateral “cap and trade” edict, along with his $0.14/gallon gas tax pretty much sowed his political doom. Jerry won’t be making a comeback, nor will the “party” he represents.

      • @Bartleby And the thing about the Republicans voting for the CA Cap & Trade bill is it allowed several Democrats that are in swing districts to vote against the cap & trade.

        Voting for the climate change bill put the seats of those Dems in jeopardy as a large percent of the commoners (of even the Democratic voters including Hispanics) opposed the cap & trade bill and the gas tax increase (which I heard could be as insanely high as 70 additional cents to what is already the highest gas prices in the nation). So, Chad Meyers et al insured that the Democrat super majority will continue. Insane. Boot the “dude” (a word he likes to use).

      • Well Eric, all I can say is that any Californian who deliberately votes Democrat in the upcoming elections is a fool. Why would anyone vote for a government that already had the highest energy taxes in the world, and then proceeded to raise them?

        I lived in Wyoming for 15 years; I was an “escapee”. I found a state that had a great educational system, outstanding roads and infrastructure, and no state taxes at all. Yep. None.

        Something is very, very wrong with California. Our job is to fix that. It may not be pretty, but the choice is ceding the entire state to Progressive Socialists who have pension plans…

      • Bartleby You are correct. Moonbeam can not run again due to term limits. I believe he was able to sneak in two more terms because his first run was before term limits was enacted.

      • That’s an excellent opinion piece, and I hope she gets the leadership position. It sounds like the current (immediate past?) leader is simply a DIRC (Democrat In Republican’s Clothing) and has no interest in doing what’s right and good for California. Cap and trade is economic nonsense, and this Assemblywoman knows it.

    • DK, the pace of appointments is one of my few major disappointments with Trump so far. Tillerson is handicapped at State, Mattis is handicapped at the Pentagon, we don’t have a replacement for Kelly at DHS, and there are still over 100 federal judicial vacancies and about 85 US District attorneys needing nominations. As a semiretired senior corporate exec, utterly baffling. No way to run a business. Board woild have fired me by now for organizational incompetence. Rumor has it that Tillerson blew up at whoever is in charge of appointments at WhiteHouse. Justifiably. Trump put Tillerson in at State. So trust Rex to fill out his team. There are bigger fish for Trump to fry.

      • you know guys….I thought the same thing for a while
        Beginning to look like there’s very few real republicans…and a whole lot of RINOS to pick from
        ….it might be because there’s few choices

        Don’t underestimate the size of the swamp

      • ristvan

        Perhaps lending some enough rope to hang themselves. Or come to their senses.

        Walking in as a new broom is fraught with problems, as you undoubtedly know. And it’s usually better to create a convert than employ a risk. Mooch being a case in point.

      • “DK, the pace of appointments is one of my few major disappointments with Trump so far. Tillerson is handicapped at State, Mattis is handicapped at the Pentagon, we don’t have a replacement for Kelly at DHS, and there are still over 100 federal judicial vacancies and about 85 US District attorneys needing nominations.”

        http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/21/new-campaign-slams-dems-for-dragging-feet-on-trump-judges-video/

        New Campaign Slams Dems For Dragging Feet On Trump Judges

        “The Judicial Crisis Network (JCN), a conservative advocacy group, is organizing a national campaign to spur judicial confirmation reform.

        Senate Democrats have slowed confirmation of judicial candidates by requiring 30 hours of floor debate for each nominee. Another informal Senate protocol has also slowed confirmation. By Senate convention, senators from states where judicial vacancies occur submit an opinion or a “blue slip,” giving a positive or negative evaluation of a nominee named to that vacancy. As a general matter, the Judiciary Committee will not convene a hearing for a nominee until the relevant senators submit their blue slips, effectively giving home-state senators veto power over judicial nominations.”

        end excerpt

        The Democrats are undermining the governing of the United States. They should be made to pay a political price for this dangerous activity. They aren’t just undermining Trump, they are underminig all of us with their obstructionism. The People are watching.

      • SMC: The holdup for NASA and NOAA administrators is not Congress but Trump having yet to nominate any. I am a multiple times per day reader of WUWT, and if Trump nominated anyone for these positions, I expect I would have heard their names.

      • ATheok:. Sounds like.Moss might be the chair of the committee.
        NYT identified Kathy Hayhoe as a professor at Texas Tech, not a government scientist. NYT should have identified her as a political science professor at Texas Tech. That would help reveal that it’s really a politicised report.

        Wonder if she’s ever called Professor HooHah.

      • TA: The “blue slip” process for a judicial nominee being able to be blocked by a senator from the nominee’s state is older than Trump, and less of an obstacle for Trump than it was for Obama because Trump has more senators in his party than Obama did. The “blue slip” process explains in part why Trump took office with 120 judicial vacancies to fill, and he filled much more judicial vacancies in his first 6 months than the past few Presidents did. Also, the “blue slip” thing applies to judicial appointments, not to political appointments to high level bureaucracy administrators and undersecretaries to Cabinet secretaries. (The NOAA Administrator is “dual hatted” as the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.)

      • “The NOAA Administrator is “dual hatted” as the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.”

        Well, I’ll be darned, I learn something every day.

      • Before Congress’s August recess (which GOP leaders declared was not a “recess”, so Trump could not make any recess appointments), Trump had sent over 550+ nominations, and the Senate had confirmed 10% of them. At the same point in time in 2009, the Democrat Senate had confirmed more than 500 of Obama’s nominations. McConnell says Trump just doesn’t understand how things in Congress (don’t) work!

  10. Great news!

    “disbanded committee are worried that without the authority of the Federal Government, their scientific recommendations “won’t have the same weight”. ”

    They are not worried about that at all, I would say. It’s the Per Diem, Travel Costs, 5-Star Hotel Bill and especially the Cash Bar at the Saloons in town and the “Red Light District” “accommodations” that they are worried about.

    Probably save about $2 Million per year.

    Ha ha

  11. “Moss said members of the group intend to keep working on their report, which is due out next spring, even though it now will lack the official imprimatur of the federal government.”. The same thing happened here in Australia a couple years ago. I am amazed that our government allowed the group to continue using the title, giving the renegades and their ‘report’ a tacit imprimatur. White ants (termites) are so difficult to exterminate.

  12. “It won’t have the same weight…”

    This carp is weightless any way. I could write their entire report without reference to any other. Probably a computer generated 5bell alarm report would be close to the unwavering narrative these clones spew.

  13. Go Trump , given the watermelons have still not accepted he won the election makes it that little bit harder , in oz our green lefty govt broadcaster have a show dedicated to make him look bad and the MSM are all too eager to make a mountain out of a molehill.
    I simply don’t believe anything our presstitutes say about Trump anymore because it’s always overblown or just made up .

    • “I simply don’t believe anything our presstitutes say about Trump anymore because it’s always overblown or just made up .”

      I bet you are not the only one either, Robert.

      The MSM are exposing themselves for what they really are: partisan, political hacks who constantly seek to try to do Trump and his millions of conservative supporters harm. The truth is not in them.

      • Good points, TA.
        The press has abandoned its role in our Republic.
        The 4th estate is now a 5th column.

  14. It’s like eating the elephant…… one bite at a time. Trump has always been rejected by the elites and he’s getting even. Trump is their worse nightmare come true. With all the violence, shenanigans, and biased press from the Progressive camp we can probably count on more people supporting Trump than before. People realize what’s happening, that it’s historic, and they are getting back into the driver’s seat of government. CAGW is a small but important part of this awakening.

    • But just as during the election cycle last year, the MSM is vapidly presenting Trump as a popular failure. They’re attacking his mandate with the claim that he lacks public support and his numbers are falling.

      Of course, they’re running the polls…

  15. … are worried that without the authority of the Federal Government, their scientific recommendations “won’t have the same weight”.

    Not to say covering all the expenses

    • I don’t know about anyone else, but I want to know who they were, how long they have been around steering policy, and were they getting paid to do so? If so, how much for how long?

      Who are these very influencial people? We deserve to know as it should be public record, and I think we might be very suprised…….

      Anyone care to guess?

      I have not been successful, to date, at finding the answers….. and none of the articles out there provides the information.

      • Advisory Committee:
        Mr. Daniel Zarrilli – Biologist/Micro biology
        Dr. Jessica Whitehead – BS Physics, MS meteorology, PhD geography
        Dr. Kim Knowlton – MA environmental and occupational health sciences, PhD. in public health
        Dr. Lucas Joppa – BA Wildlife Ecology, PhD ecology
        Dr. Maria Carmen Lemos – BS economics, MS and PhD. D political science
        Dr. Michael Prather – BA/BS Mathematics and Physics, PhD D Astronomy and Astrophysics
        Dr. Richard Moss – MA Public Affairs, PhD Public and International Affairs
        Dr. Riley Dunlap – B.A. M.S. and PhD in Sociology
        Dr. Susan Avery – BS Physics, PhD atmospheric science
        Mr. Daniel Zarrilli – BS in Civil Engineering, MS in Civil and Environmental Engineering
        Mr. Paul Fleming – BA Economics, MBA
        Ms. Ann Marie Chischilly – Lawyer
        Ms. Jan Dell – Could only guess Petroleum Engineer or lawyer??? My guess is lawyer judging by work history
        Ms. Kristen Poppleton – BA in Biology, MEd in Environmental Education, MS in Conservation Biology
        Ms. Maxine Burkett – Lawyer

      • Advisory Committe:

        Mr. Daniel Zarrilli - Biologist/Micro biology
        Dr. Jessica Whitehead - BS Physics, MS meteorology, PhD geography
        Dr. Kim Knowlton - MA environmental and occupational health sciences, PhD public health
        Dr. Lucas Joppa - BA Wildlife Ecology, PhD ecology
        Dr. Maria Carmen Lemos - BS economics, MS and PhD political science
        Dr. Michael Prather - BA/BS Mathematics and Physics, PhD Astronomy and Astrophysics
        Dr. Richard Moss - MA Public Affairs, PhD Public and International Affairs
        Dr. Riley Dunlap - B.A. M.S. and PhD in Sociology
        Dr. Susan Avery - BS Physics, PhD  atmospheric science
        Mr. Daniel Zarrilli - BS in Civil Engineering, MS in Civil and Environmental Engineering
        Mr. Paul Fleming - BA Economics, MBA
        Ms. Ann Marie Chischilly - Lawyer
        Ms. Jan Dell - petroleum engineer or lawyer??? My guess is lawyer by work history.
        Ms. Kristen Poppleton - BA Biology, MEd Environmental Education, MS Conservation Biology
        Ms. Maxine Burkett - Lawyer

        And I thought you had to be a climate scientist.

      • https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-federal-report-finds-strong-link-between-climate-change-human-activity/2017/08/07/583283d2-7bdd-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.e016800fee76

        The report, known as the Climate Science Special Report, finds it is “extremely likely” that more than half of the rise in temperatures over the past four decades has been caused by human activity — in contrast to Trump Cabinet members’ views that the magnitude of that contribution is uncertain.

        The draft report, which has undergone extensive review, estimates that human impact was responsible for an increase in global temperatures of 1.1 to 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit from 1951 to 2010.

        “Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate changes,” the report notes. “There are no alternative explanations, and no natural cycles are found in the observational record that can explain the observed changes in climate.”

        [Excerpts from the Third draft of the Climate Science Special Report]

        *************************

        I have studied this subject since 1985 and I reject the above statements as false because they are clearly NOT supported by the evidence. There is NO evidence that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 (ECS) is high, as is suggested in the above paragraphs. There is ample evidence that ECS is low, probably <=1C/(2*CO2).

        Regards, Allan

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/10/claim-climate-science-does-not-have-to-be-falsifiable/comment-page-1/#comment-2578369

        [excerpt]

        In fact, the ~35-year global cooling period that commenced in ~1940 adequately falsifies the hypothesis that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a significant driver of global warming. The CAGW hypo is further falsified by the current ~20-year “Pause” in global temperatures.

        That is why the warmists have more recently been falsifying the temperature data records to minimize the ~35-year cooling period and increase their alleged warming during the Pause.

        Conclusion:
        Since 1940 there has been ~22 years of positive correlation of temperature with CO2, and ~55 years of negative or ~zero correlation. The global warming hypo is contradicted by a full-Earth-scale test since 1940. CO2 is NOT a significant driver of global warming.

        Regards, Allan

      • Failure to acknowledge that CO2 is required for all life on earth is science ignorance.
        Failure to discover that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is science incompetence.
        Changing measured data to corroborate an agenda is science malpractice.

      • Good comments Dan, thank you. More on CO2 starvation below:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/14/pruitt-epa-will-review-politicized-climate-science-report/comment-page-1/#comment-2582129

        [excerpt]

        Furthermore, there is overwhelming evidence that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans is not dangerously high – it is dangerously low, too low for the continued survival of carbon-based life on Earth.

        I have written about the vital issue of “CO2 starvation” since 2009 or earlier, and recently others including Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, have also written on this subject.

        As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on Earth, I feel it is my duty to advocate on our behalf. To be clear, I am not prejudiced against non-carbon-based life forms, but I really do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. They could be very nice. :-)

        Regards, Allan

        My post from 2009:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#comment-79426

        Patrick Moore from 2016:
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/moore-positive-impact-of-human-co2-emissions.pdf

        Executive Summary

        This study looks at the positive environmental effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a topic which has been well established in the scientific literature but which is far too often ignored in the current discussions about climate change policy. All life is carbon based and the primary source of this carbon is the CO2 in the global atmosphere. As recently as 18,000 years ago, at the height of the most recent major glaciation, CO2 dipped to its lowest level in recorded history at 180 ppm, low enough to stunt plant growth.

        This is only 30 ppm above a level that would result in the death of plants due to CO2 starvation. It is calculated that if the decline in CO2 levels were to continue at the same rate as it has over the past 140 million years, life on Earth would begin to die as soon as two million years from now and would slowly perish almost entirely as carbon continued to be lost to the deep ocean sediments. The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of plants, including food crops and trees. Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle, thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth.

        [end of Exec Summary]

    • Just look, for those who don’t click the link above. Unreal if accurate! Who on this list doesn’t have a climate agenda or tainted perspective that they profit from based on their titles? More importantly, Who on this list is a qualified climatologist? Anyone wonder why this group was disbanded by a business man anylonger? I am stunned that an unelected group like this would be permitted to basically set policy for our country. WT*!

      Appointments Expire April 15, 2018

      Ms. Maxine Burkett, Professor of Law, University of Hawai’i William S. Richardson School of Law

      Dr. Riley Dunlap, Regents Professor of Sociology and Dresser Professor, Oklahoma State University

      Dr. Kim Knowlton, Senior Scientist, Science Center Deputy Director, Natural Resources Defense Council and Assistant Clinical Professor, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University

      Dr. Richard Moss, Senior Scientist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research Institute at the University of Maryland, Committee Chair

      Dr. Jessica Whitehead, Coastal Communities Hazards Adaptation Specialist, North Carolina Sea Grant

      Appointments Expire April 15, 2019

      Dr. Susan Avery, President Emerita, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

      Ms. Jan Dell, Vice President – Clean Energy, Water & Climate, Wood Group

      Mr. Paul Fleming, Climate Resiliency Group Manager, Seattle Public Utilities

      Dr. Jerry Melillo, Distinguished Scientist and Director Emeritus, The Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory

      Dr. Michael Prather, Professor of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine

      Ms. Ann Marie Chischilly, Executive Director, Northern Arizona University-Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals

      Dr. Lucas Joppa, Lead Environmental Scientist, Microsoft Research

      Dr. Maria Carmen Lemos, Professor of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment

      Ms. Kristen Poppleton, Director of Education, Climate Generation – a Will Steger Legacy

    • Dave

      Joke? So was Hillary. In fact, here’s the latest:

      Hillary calls Trump to report RBG has passed away, and Hillary wants to take her place.

      Trump says if it’s ok with the funeral home, it’s ok with him.

      Ta dum!

    • He entered because he saw that what was going on under Obama was a joke – one that was destroying the country. His original line, in regard to illegal immigration which was getting out of control, was: “Are we a country or aren’t we?” And he’s been evincing the same common sense ever since.

    • When Trump won the heads of anti-lifers (Those who hate CO2 and believe climastrology) started exploding everywhere!

  16. I totally disagree. Trump entered the race to win it, and he did. He’s been around long enough to know how long and hard a presidential race is, and he entered at least two years ago and gave it all he had. The joke, if any, is on those who discounted Trump’s chances or his seriousness in running.

    • I remember election night. I had laid down in bed but still had the tv on watching the returns and every indication was Hillary was going to be the winner, and then all of a sudden Trump won Pennsylvannia and West Virginia and the pundits started making noises like Trump was still in the hunt, and I got out of bed and turned the lights on and watched state after state come in for Trump. And he won!!! What a night! We were saved from a very bad future. At least temporarily.

      Trump gave a good speech tonight on Afghanistan. Maybe his best. He looked real good, and his speech demonstrated that he understood the problems he will have to deal with in Afghanistan, and he seems ready to get to work. He hit all the right points.

      Some people complain that Afghanistan is the longest war in American history at 16 years, but you have to keep in mind that for the last eight years, the U.S. military was not allowed to do anything that would be effective in Afghanistan.

      Obama wouldn’t give the generals the troops they said they needed and then gave the Taliban his exit strategy and timetable, so the Taliban have no reason to do anything other than wait us out.

      Well, that’s changed now. And Pakistan is on notice too, which is the most important aspect of this fight since you will never win a fight with an enemy where the enemy can run away to a safe haven every time you hurt them, and stay there and recoup and rearm and go attack you again. The safe havens have to go if we are to win this fight. Bottom line.

      Obama would not give the generals a free hand in Afghanistan and we see the debacle it has turned into. Trump is going to give the generals a free hand. Let’s see how smart our generals are. I’m betting they are very smart and know just what needs to be done. We’ll see soon enough.

    • Including the above Greg troll. The need to employ trolls just emphasises the weakness of their case. To put it mildly.

      The employment of ‘antifa battalions’ is however more a case of insurrection. It is not unnoticed in high places, Greg, and yes ‘elections do have consequences’. These are just beyond the comprehension of snowflakes. The trap is closing, set by the fools who imagine there are no consequences…..
      Even getting rid of Trump would not help them. Vive Les Deplorables!

  17. CNN’s Sara Gaming and Chris Welch a day ago published a story based on interviews with antifa members that revealed the deliberately violent nature of the group. The headline was “Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement: Activists seek peace through violence.” When Antifa complained, CNN later dropped the second phrase to placate them (but kept the story intact, which describes them essentially as a communist group fighting against the neo-nazis). That’s what Charlottesville was all about.

    One is reminded of Germany in the years after WWI, with Communists and Nazis duking it out.

    The article confirms, perhaps inadvertantly, Trump’s comments blaming the Charlottesville violence on both sides.

    One is remi

    • “One is reminded of Germany in the years after WWI, with Communists and Nazis duking it out.

      The article confirms, perhaps inadvertantly, Trump’s comments blaming the Charlottesville violence on both sides.”

      That is exactly what happened in Charlottesville. Nazis against Anarchist/Antifa. The difference between Germany and the United States is that in the U.S. both groups are very small in comparison to the population and don’t represent anyone but themselves. Both groups are authoritarian and seek to run other people’s lives through threats and violence. The vast majority of the American people reject both violent ideologies.

      Trump said the truth about the situation in Charlottesville from the start. He said there were bad people on both sides and good people on both sides, although the Left and the MSM tried to claim that all those on the Right were Nazis and White Supremacists, and Trump was giving them cover. The usual lies from the Left and the MSM. All Republicans including Trump are racists, that’s the theme and has been for decades, even though it is the Democrats who are the party of slavery and Jim Crow and of fighting the Civil Rights laws tooth and nail. It was Republicans who passed those laws despite Democrat efforts to stop them. Al Gore’s father being one of the more prominent Democrats involved.

      Some people were there concerned about preserving American history and were not part of the Nazis/WhiteSupremacists and some on the Left were concerned about the Nazis and the White Supremacists, but they were not part of Antifa. And then there were groups on both sides who came only to stir up trouble and cause violence. Trump condemned all the haters. He doesn’t have to call them out name by name, although the Left says he does, otherwise he is a racist.

      Trump just said the truth and the Left and the MSM try to make it out to be racist. Standard Operating Procedure for these low-lifes.

  18. The report needs to start out in very simple terms what the President needs to know:

    1. The AGW conjecure is based upon a radiant greenhouse effect provided for by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere including the Earth. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction.

    2. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientiic rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. Hence, reducing CO2 emissions will have no effect on climate.

    3. According to the paleoclimate record, and the work that has been done with models, the climate change we are now experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control.

    4. Even if mankind could somehow stop the climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue to happen because they are part of the current climate. We do not know what the optimum climate is nor how to achieve it,

    5, It would be best not to spend money trying to solve problems that Mankind does not have the power to solve,

    • 3. According to the paleoclimate record, and the work that has been done with models, the climate change we are now experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control.

      Agree.
      However, the climate has always changed in the past, and in my opinion a change of a few centigrade/100y is not really a considerable change in climate. It’s more a media and model fabricated hype.
      The real climate change in my opinion is the change between glacial/interglacial periods, not what’s going on in our shortsightedly era of 100 or 200 years.

      • However, the climate has always changed in the past, and in my opinion a change of a few centigrade/100y is not really a considerable change in climate. It’s more a media and model fabricated hype.
        The real climate change in my opinion is the change between glacial/interglacial periods, not what’s going on in our shortsightedly era of 100 or 200 years.

        I have this problem as well and have often commented upon it. I consider that there is a lack of understanding of what climate is and what goes to compose climate, eg. temperature, humidity, precipitation, patterns of precipitation (including monsoons, frequency of flooding, frequency of droughts, snowfall), strength of sunshine and sunshine hours, cloudiness (including patterns of cloudiness), storminess (including being prone to hurricanes and cyclones), wind patterns etc etc.

        Temperature is just one of many parameters that go up to make the climate (of a region). All these parameters are variable, some independent and some dependent, but nonetheless they are variable and are in constant flux. These variable parameters constantly meander between bounds, some times they are at the high end of the bounds, and at other times at the low end of the bounds, sometimes they remain at the top of the bound for long periods, at other times for short periods.

        Since these parameters are in constant flux and are constantly varying, a change in one or more of these variables is not necessarily a change in climate, and it is not even in and of itself evidence of climate change.

        The issue here is the time frame. To me, given the age of this planet, and the time period of life on Earth, a 30 year period is a ludicrously short period. it is a mere blink of an eye. To me, I would assess the climate of a region over a period of centuries, possibly a thousand or so years. It may well be that the MWP is the upper bound of climate, and the LIA is the lower bound of climate and anything in between is simply climate and nothing more.

        What is frequently overlooked is that during the MWP there were not uniformly warm days/years but were also cold days/years. The same is so in the LIA. This was not universally cold year on year, and sometimes there were warm years and warm winters. And this is because of the constant meandering of the variable parameters that make up climate.

        Personally, I do not accept that we are seeing any climate change. Obviously, on a general basis, it is a little warmer today than it was in the midst of the LIA, and a little cooler than it was in the MWP, but hey that is just climate.

        Climate of course is regional not global. As regards global climate, there are simply 3 climate states, namely ice age, inter-glacial, and ice free. Globally we are in an inter-glacial and the behavour today is what one would expect to see in an inter-glacial epoch.

        This is why, the use of the term climate change should be resisted when discussing anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and instead we should insist upon the use of the term global warming even though there is nothing global about the pattern of warming. The theory is based upon the radiative warming effect of CO2, and we should there insist on keeping the term warming so that this can be scientifically tested. A shift of terms is already handing the activists a partial victory.

      • Thank you for your reply. I am sure that a lot more can be said but I am trying to keep it simple. The climate change we are experiencing today is so small that it takes very sophisticated instrumentation quite a long time to even detect it. Most of what we have been dealing with are really weather cycles and not really climate change. As long as I have been alive climate zones have not changed. I live in the costal zone of Orange County here in Southern California and as long as I live here the climate has not changed. So far we are having a cooler summer than last year because we have had more steady onshore winds. The more than average rainfall that we had last winter was not unusuall.

    • Every single one of your points is contradicted by the science.

      No reputable scientist will claim that there is no greenhouse effect (or ‘radiant’ greenhouse effect, if you prefer) or that it is not seen on other planets.

      We can dispute the future rate of warming, but it is warming and the greenhouse effect is as solid physics as gravity

      • Provide a paper that proves, using empirical evidence, that CO2 warms a convectively controlled atmosphere.

        Or you have ZERO science, as usual, griff.

      • There is absolutely NO CO2 warming signature in the satellite data.

        Only warming has come from El Nino events.

        No CO2 warming signature ANYWHERE.

        The warming from the mis-named “greenhouse effect” is NOT solid physics.

        It is based on erroneous, assumption driven, non-facts.

        The so-called “greenhouse effect” doesn’t even exist in a greenhouse. !!

      • No Griff. All of my points are supported by science. For example, IR has nohing to do with keeping a real greenhouse warm. They even ran experiments that determined such in the early 20th century. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. So too on Earth. Gravity reduces cooling by convection and hence provides a convective greenhouse effect. The Earth’s convective greenhouse effect is a function of gravity, the heat capacity of the atmosphere, and the altitude of the troposphere and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption of trace gases.. As derived from first principals the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect keeps the Earth’s surface on average 33 degrees C warmer than without any greenhouse effect at all. 33 degrees C is what has been derived and 33 degrees C is what has been observed. Any additional warming caused by an additional radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. If CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. The so called greenhouse gases absorb LWIR radiation but they also radiate away that same radiation. The so called greenhouse gasses do ot trap heat. If any gas traps heat it would be the non-greenhouse gases because they are such poor LWIR radiatiors.

      • No reputable scientist will claim that there is no greenhouse effect (or ‘radiant’ greenhouse effect, if you prefer) or that it is not seen on other planets.,

        Where is the (radiant) greenhouse effect on Mars?

        The Martian atmosphere (on a physical numerical basis) has an order of magnitude more molecules of CO2 than is contained in Earth’s atmosphere. Not only are there an order of magnitude more CO2 molecules, these molecules are much more densely/closely packed together (since Mars is a much smaller sphere) such that it is far easier for a photon radiated from the surface of Mars to be intercepted by a molecule of CO2 and then be re-radiated from that molecule and then be intercepted by another molecule of CO2 etc than is the position with planet Earth.

        Put another way, it is far more difficult for a photon emitted from the surface of Mars to find its way to the TOA of the Martian atmosphere and thence radiated to the great void of space, than it is for a photon emitted from the surface of Earth to find its way to the TOA of Earth’s atmosphere and thence radiated to the great void of space..

        if a temperature of a planet is governed by the amount of molecules of so called GHGs in the atmosphere of the planet then one would expect to see a significant radiant GHE on Mars.

        Mars has broadly the equivalent of 5 doublings of CO2 (ie., the change from around 260 ppm Earth’s pre-industrial levels to around 5,000 ppm being the concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere if Earth’s atmosphere contained the same number of molecules of CO2 as exist in the Martian atmosphere). One would therefore expect to see a significant GHE on Mars but modified in relation to the amount of solar irradiance reaching the surface of Mars compared to the amount of solar irradiance reaching the surface of Earth. But there is no measurable radiant GHE on Mars.

        On Earth, sun overhead at noon is about 1000 W/m2 whereas on Mars its is about 590W/m2. Thus one would not expect to see a 33degC radiant GHE (the claimed radiant GHE for Earth) but perhaps one in the order of 19 degC (33 x 590/1000) plus whatever 5 doublings of CO2 actually does. Obviously that is not an accurate figure, but just a general ball park figure if there is a radiant GHE on Mars, but nothing of that general order has been measured.

        Griff, perhaps you can explain why nothing of that general order has been measured. Please list by name the reputable scientists who assert that there is a radiant GHE on Mars, or link to the NASA web page or the web page other well known institution detailing and quantifying the radiant GHE on Mars

      • Griff

        No reputable scientist will claim that there is no greenhouse effect (or ‘radiant’ greenhouse effect, if you prefer) or that it is not seen on other planets.

        Whilst on the subject of the (radiant) GHE on other planets, perhaps you will explain how the radiant GHE works on Venus. I accept (unlike the position with respect to Mars) that reputable scientists do cl;aim that there is a radiant GHE on Venus, but whilst this is often asserted, it is never explained precisely how it works.

        I am not asserting that there is no radiant GHE on Venus, but I am sceptical that there is. IF, there is a radiant GHE on Venus then it must work in a radically different manner to the way in which the radiant GHE works on Earth.

        The general basics of the theory of the radiant GHE rests upon the Earth’s atmosphere being generally transparent to the wavelength of incoming solar irradiance, whereas it is somewhat opaque to the wavelength of emitted outgoing radiation. More refined, the photons of upwelling IR (UPLWIR) are intercepted by radiative gases in Earth’s atmosphere such as CO2, absorbed by these radiative gases and then re-radiated in all directions, with (approximately) half of which being returned to the surface as DWLWIR. This process is said to warm the surface of the planet making it warmer than it would otherwise be if the radiant gases were absent from the atmosphere.

        On Earth, the sun overhead produces about 1000 W/m2 of incoming solar irradiance at the surface of Earth, whereas on Venus, according to measurements taken by the Russian Venera Mission, the amount of solar irradiance received at the surface of Venus is only 17 W/m2. The surface of Venus does not absorb very much solar irradiance.

        This is because unlike Earth’s atmosphere, the atmosphere of Venus is not largely transparent to the wavelength of incoming solar irradiance. So on Venus one does not have the essential characteristic of an atmosphere which is transparent to incoming solar irradiance but somewhat opaque to emitted from the surface outgoing LWIR.

        Griff, please will; you enlighten us all by explaining the precise details of how the radiant GHE works on Venus, given that the Venusian atmosphere is not transparent to incoming solar irradiance, and almost no solar irradiance reaches the surface and is absorbed by the surface.

      • Griff: “No reputable scientist will claim that there is no greenhouse effect (or ‘radiant’ greenhouse effect, if you prefer) or that it is not seen on other planets.”

        Now you’ve stepped in it Griff, you’ve got to answer Richard Verney’s question:

        Where is the (radiant) greenhouse effect on Mars?

        Have you even tried to set up an equation to derive the answer? I’ve tried but can’t find any science behind the [radiant greenhouse effect] – can you at least get this equation started?

        In general terms, does the Mars’ day warm up faster and cool down slower because of its 95% CO2 atmosphere? Now show us the sine wave of the daily temperatures of a Mars’ location, a typical temperature delta of 200 F degrees, and show us how this curve would be different if the Mars’ atmosphere had an equal mass of nitrogen in place of the CO2.

      • The greenhouse effect is established physics: CO2 and so called greenhouse gasses trap heat in an atmosphere and that works in any planetary atmosphere.

        When you’ve all got Nobel prizes for disproving the greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere, then we can go on to the planets….

        Meanwhile any discussion of Venus is irrelevant to the basics: CO2 warms Earth’s atmosphere. More of it, more warming.

      • Geoff,
        What exactly is warming?
        “It” is a big word.
        And likewise your assertion that there “science dismisses every point”, us just silly bloviating.
        Be specific.
        …..if you can.

      • Griff: “disproving the greenhouse effect ”

        How do you disprove that Celestial Spheres exist?

        The Greenhouse Gas Effect is today’s Celestial Spheres. Celestial Spheres were introduced into models of planetary orbits to maintain the thought that everything obits around the Earth. The models worked quite well, therefore Celestial Spheres exist?

      • Griff:

        “We can dispute the future rate of warming, but it is warming and the greenhouse effect is as solid physics as gravity”

        No one has any idea how the physics of gravity works. It just ‘is’. That is not much to go on when making a claim about AG CO2 and global warming.

      • It seems all Griff did in his post was to reveal his complete lack of understanding of either side of the debate.
        If only he/she/it was smart enough to realize this.

      • Actually, even the nature or even the presence of a greenhouse effect vis a vis climate (and not just short-term effects, which are largely due to water vapor) is still being debated – as Kenneth Richard demonstrated in one of his sample of (peer reviewed) papers. I have no position on this particular issue, since I’m not a climatologist – but you’re showing your scientific illiteracy with phrases like “contradicted by the science”. And as Richard showed, your second statement is simply wrong. (Incidentally, your words bear a striking resemblance to some of the protocols that Jean Piaget collected when young children were asked about the rules for playing marbles, which I’ve been reading recently. There was that same assurance that the rules were inviolate, although the reference was to “Daddy” as the source rather than “the science”.)

      • Griff, most of the greenhouse effect is done by the first 50 ppm. after that is decreases exponentially. Read David Archibald’s site (can you read?)

      • “Every single one of your points is contradicted by the science.”

        What would you know about ‘the science’, Skanky?

        Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford for lying in an attempt to discredit her scientific credibility yet?

      • Griff: On all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres, including the Earth, the convective greenhouse effect accounts for the entire insulating effects of the atmosphere. Additional warming that could be attributed to a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system. CO2 does not generate energy. The only way that more CO2 can cause warming at the Earth’s surface is for more CO2 to increase the insulating effects of the atmosphere. A good measure of the insulating effects of the atmosphere is the lapse rate. If more CO2 in the atmosphere caused warming then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the tropsophere but such has not happened. If CO2 were such a great insulator than one would expect that there exist engineering applications that make use of that property but there just are not any.

  19. Es nuestra TEORÍA sobre Calentamiento Global- Cambio Climático escrita en 2012 la que se impuso y cambio todo.En nuestra TEORÍA demostramos que el 60%del Calentamiento se debe al ascenso del magma-erupciones volcánicas, el 30 % acción del Sol, 10% el Hombre.El Calentamiento Global empieza 15-20 años antes de fin de siglo y termina en los 15-20 primeros años del nuevo siglo.y todo cambia el 60% Sol,20%erupciones volcánicas,20% Hombre.Todo es CÍCLICO.El hombre CONTAMINA y eso es PEOR QUE EL CALENTAMIENTO.

    • “It is our THEORY on Global Warming – Climate Change written in 2012 that imposed and change everything. In our THEORY we demonstrate that 60% of the Warming is due to the rise of volcanic eruption magma, 30% of the Sun, 10% Man.El Global Warming begins 15-20 years before the end of the century and ends in the 15-20 first years of the new century.and everything changes 60% Sol, 20% volcanic eruptions, 20% Hombre.Todo is CÍCLICO.El Man CONTAMINATES and that is WORSE2

      (or so google translate tells me)

      • The greenhouse effect is an application of the reification fallacy. Under this fallacy,an abstract object is treated as if it were a concrete object.

  20. A bit OT but our ABC were interviewing some hack who says fish are getting smaller because of CAGW , gilled fish grow up to 30% smaller with every one degree rise in water temps apparently.

      • And sharks of course.

        And some of the largest fish of all were seen in the very warm oceans of the past, such as the 30 foot Dunkleosteus seen in the Denovian period, and what about the Mesozoic era such as the 70 foot Leedsichthys of the middle/late Jurassic.

        Talk about a study that lacks perspective.

  21. On a serious note. The fact they are continuing tells you their motive. How many of us, if fired today, would say “Oh, i will carry on anyway”.

  22. I’m sure they will continue. They can just do it without the benefit of tax-payer funding, and preferential treatment.

    I’m sure someone in Hollywood or perhaps Soros will help fund them.

  23. The committee that has never met vows to continue not meeting. That’s not just winning, that’s MAGA Winning!

  24. A great quote from Leo Tolstoy
    _______________________________________________
    “The Most difficult subjects can be taught to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he already knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.
    ________________________________________________

  25. President Trumps win has revealed the RINO’s who as indicated above are were quick to approve Democrat nominee’s . Pretending to be Republicans in order to get elected is now going to have consequences . Bannon knows full well who the RINO’s are and they are going to get exposed .
    The Republican Party needs to weed out those in disguise who offer nothing but under tow .

    Now that Bannon is gone watch how long it takes for people like Al Gore to court
    the RINO’s in the Republican Party and President Trumps family again .
    “Renewable ” rent seekers rely on tax payer money and government policy to make them rich so they have no choice but to kiss ass and weasel their way in to liberate that cash . No cash and the global warming
    con game is over .

  26. This happened in Australia too. The well-paid Climate Committee convened under Labor were booted out by Tony Abbott and swore to go on fighting, unpaid, for the sake of the planet. A year later they were panhandling the public for contributions to keep them going, and threatening to shut down if they didn’t get them.

    As Abbott said, in effect, at the time: “If they would do it for nothing, then why the hell are we paying them?”

  27. Jon
    Agreed . Why pay them at all ? So they can weed out any narrative or science that they don’t like .
    Screw them . They made their own bed let Gore or Steyer pay them .
    This is why the denier label is now used by the climate fear industry . These people aren’t used to the fact their filtered propaganda is no longer taken at face value . Their industries first big mistake was claiming “the science is settled ‘ .
    The white coats have turned to pink coats and science credibility has dropped .

    Keep going Mr . Trump this swamp took at least 20 years to fill .
    France seems keen on accepting what these people are selling . Orivoir ! Take Gore too .

  28. OK, it’s only the first time I’ve heard of him, but I like the cut of this Ben Friedman’s gib.

  29. What is meant by the statement that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas (ghg)? If by that is meant CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation with a wave length of 15 microns (including +/- a micron or so due to pressure broadening, etc. at low altitude), well, that was demonstrated in the lab a long time ago and remains true. But if by that is meant CO2 significantly contributes to global warming, there is multiple compelling evidence that it does not.

    On the other hand, the relentlessly rising trend of water vapor at 1.5% per decade continues to prevent the global cooling that would otherwise be occurring.

  30. The lack of statistical rigor in these presumably research based documents is scandalous. Absent error bars, range, mode, and other descriptive analysis, not to mention confounding variable admissions, should give pause to any presidential consideration. What does this say when Trump, without statistical analysis credentials, can deduce weakness in the climate warming narrative which is based on mob-research, money chasing declarations?

    I am such an idealist. Research should NEVER be a foregone conclusion. Yet I have witnessed it to be so.

Comments are closed.